|
 |
Home  Media2011 |
 
|
|
| Clout and the many faces of control, The Australian, 29 October 2011 |
| by Tim Soutphommasane, Senior Project Leader, Per Capita | |
What is the difference between power and influence?
IT is common these days to modify any usage of the word power. Political scientists talk about the difference between hard and soft power. Magazine editors refer to power in its overt and covert forms. Countries are ranked according to whether they are superpowers, great powers or middle powers.
This reflects the fact that power means little without context. It matters whether we are talking about politics or economics or culture. Or whether we are talking about institutions or individuals.
In essence, power involves two elements. First, it must involve a particular relationship between two or more parties. There must be a power-wielder and a subject (or subjects) of that power. Second, there must be something resembling cause and effect. Someone exercises power when their actions or statements have the effect of getting another to do something they otherwise wouldn't, perhaps even in a manner contrary to their interest.
As typically understood, power is regarded as being of a different, higher order from influence. To say someone has influence may mean they merely have their voice heard. In another context, George Orwell may be considered a significant influence on Christopher Hitchens, but it makes no sense to say that Hitchens is subject to Orwell's power.
We tend to regard power as having an ultimately repressive or coercive character. The possession of power involves having the means to control the behaviour of others. It must ultimately mean being able to say ``no'' to another's wish to do something.
Philosopher Michel Foucault argued this view is deficient. ``What makes power hold good,'' he wrote, ``is the fact that it doesn't only weigh on us as a force that says no.'' Power is also creative: ``it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse''.
I don't normally find myself in complete agreement with Foucault -- or, for that matter, other so-called post-structuralist philosophers -- but on this point he is correct.
The sociologist Steven Lukes advanced what is for me the most compelling theory, which he called the ``three-dimensional view of power''.
According to Lukes, it remains true that power could involve coercion. It most obviously brings itself to bear when governments, business, or individuals make decisions on particular issues. Decisions to hire and fire represent the clearest examples.
Power may also be exercised, though, in less observable ways. It also exists in a second dimension, referring to the ability to set an agenda or, in sociological jargon, non-decision-making. An individual or entity may shape which issues arise for deliberation in the first place.
Lukes went further in favouring a three-dimensional view. This regards power to involve not only issue conflicts and agendas, but something more cultural as well. To possess power can also include being able to shape and determine people's wants and preferences. Someone may exercise power long before any decisions need to be made, and before any conflict of interest takes place.
This sounds about right. In practical terms, it is not only identifiable leaders in the realms of politics, business or civil society who wield power. Don't opinion-makers in the media also have the power to shape decisions and even non-decisions? Don't entrepreneurs and entertainers have an ideological power to affect how we see the world? And what about those advertisers who bombard us with commercial messages, reinforcing or manipulating our tastes as consumers?
My point here is that while power is most obviously manifested in coercive ability, it may also consist of influence. We shouldn't overstate the distance between being powerful and being influential. Sometimes power needn't be exercised with force in order to be felt. It is the mere capacity of it that matters.
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
