International Relations

Theory SGIA 2131

Explain and Critique the concept of power.

Joachim Sabbat
2/20/2012
1904 Words



Power is a central concept in discussions of politics, with many different interpretations existing of
what it means. I seek to explain several different conceptualizations and try and come to a conclusion
as to whether any conceptualization supercedes the others. Finally, there is a brief discussion as to
the nature of conceptual analysis, and the impact this has on power.
Power is a complicated, multi-faceted concept that is of central importance in the study of
politics. As Daniel Frei notes, the concept of power is fundamentally identical to the concept
of the political
1
. It is a concept that demonstrates a notable lack of agreement both about its
specific definition, and about many features of the conceptual context in which it should be
placed.

Hannah Arendt has propounded a communicative theory of power, where power, rather than
being based on the Weberian concept of the probability that one actor within a social
relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance
2
, is a social
conception, one of the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.
3
As a result of this,
Arendt argues that when we suggest that someone is regarded as being in power, we mean
that they are empowered by people to act in their name. Niklas Luhmann echoes Arendts
thoughts, and suggests that power is a symbolically generated medium of communication
4
,
where power is not the instrumentalization of anothers will, but the formation of a common
will in a communication directed to reaching agreement. Empirical evidence of Arendts
communicative power can clearly be seen in the recent events of the Arab Spring. Here there
has been a clear
withdrawal of obedience to institutions that [had] lost their legitimacy; the
confrontation of communicative power with the means of force of a coercive but
impotent state apparatus; the beginning of a new political order and the attempt...to

1
S. Guzzini, The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis, Journal of International Studies, 33 (2005)
p511
2
R Dahl ed. S. Lukes, Power (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1986) p39
3
H. Arendt, Ibid. p64
4
S. Guzzini, The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis, Journal of International Studies, 33 (2005)
p505
hold fast to the initial revolutionary situation, to give institutional permanence to the
communicative generation of power.
5


Nevertheless, Arendts conception of power is unipolar and fails to describe in terms of
power ideas of coercion (violence and force, as defined by Arendt). Talcott Parsons proposes
a solution that maintains both aspects are important, and furthermore, neither subordinating
them or treating them as discrete forms of power, which he views as an unsatisfactory
result. For Parsons, power is a
generalized capacity to secure the performance of binding obligations by units in a
system of collective organization, when the obligations are legitimized with reference
to their bearing on collective goals and where in case of recalcitrance there is a
presumption of enforcement by negative...sanctions.
6

Thus, Parsons regards power as a circulating medium, analogous to money. Power can be
classified in two ways. Firstly, by the channel of action open to the individual exerting
power-either through exercising some form of control over the situation, or by trying to
change the intentions of the other party. Secondly, Parsons makes the distinction of positive
and negative sanctions. We can see that, for example, coercion occurs through the situational
channel with the use of negative sanctions, whilst persuasion occurs via trying to convince
the other party through positive sanctions that action x is good for them. However, as power
is such a complex multi-dimensional concept, to argue that it is a resource or vehicle, akin to
money, is an oversimplification. One can consider the fungibility of power, with reference to
the ideas of Baldwin. The owner of a political power resource, such as the means to deter
atomic attack, is likely to have difficulties converting this resource into another resource that

5
J. Habermas ed. S. Lukes, Power (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1986) p81
6
T. Parsons, Ibid. p103
would, for instance, allow his country to become leader of the Third World. Power is not a
fungible resource, as it comes it many differentiated forms.

Michel Foucault approaches the discussion of power from another angle, arguing that
relations of power cannot themselves be established, consolidated nor implemented without
the production, accumulation, circulation and functioning of a discourse
7
For Foucault,
power never ceases its interrogation...of truth.
8
Power is determined by rules of right
implemented from discourses of truth.

Ever since Carrs The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1939, A concern with power in
international politics is frequently interpreted as a disciplinary attachment to realism.
Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall have sought to create a biaxial conception of power
which moves past the limitations of previous interpretations, arguing that the failure to
develop alternative conceptualisations of power limits the ability of international relations
scholars to understand how global outcomes are produced and how actors are differentially
enabled and constrained to determine their fates.
9


They firstly consider how power is expressed, whether it works in interactions or via social
constitution. Thus, power can act through behavioural relations or interactions, which, in
turn, affect the ability of others to control the circumstances of their existence.
10
This
exercise of power to control others can be viewed as a power over someone. In contrast, one
can have a conception of power to, where power can work through social relations that

7
M. Foucault ed. S. Lukes, Power (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1986) p229
8
Ibid.
9
M. Barnett & R. Duvall, Power in International Politics, International Organization, 59, no.1 (2005) p41
10
Ibid. p45
analytically precede the social or subject positions of actors.
11
This constitutive relation can
be similar to Arendts communicative power, in that it can help explain how community or
collective action [is] facilitated.
12
Barnett and Duvalls second axis is that of the specificity
of relations of power. One can either argue, as Robert Dahl did, that there is no action at a
distance where power acts directly, or alternatively, such as in the case of actions of power
in the rules of institutions, indirectly. From this biaxial taxonomy, four conceptual types of
power arise.

Compulsory power can be viewed as the realist conception of power, where of importance
is the consideration of how one state is able to use material resources to advance its interests
in direct opposition to the interests of another state.
13
As Dahl suggested, A has power over
B to the extent that he can get B to do something the B would not otherwise do.
14
This type
of power is the easiest to recognise and can be seen in instances of coercion, deployment of
violence and the control of capital in economic situations.

Institutional power, occurs once again between preconstituted actors, but in contrast, is
diffuse in nature, and often entails the use of power via an intermediary institution.
Institutional arrangements can further the goals of some, whilst limiting the opportunities of
others, and can lead to significant asymmetric rewards, with the creation of winners and
losers. Some have regarded market forces as such a factor, creating dependent relations that
have a detrimental impact on the weak party.
15



11
Ibid. p46
12
Ibid.
13
M. Barnett & R. Duvall, Power in International Politics, International Organization, 59, no.1 (2005) p50
14
R. Dahl, The Concept of Power, Behavioral Science 2 (3) pp 202-203
15
See Albert Hirschmans writings on foreign trade, National Power and the Structure of Foreign Trade
Barnett and Duval thirdly consider a direct, constitutive form of structural power, where
Whereas institutional power focuses on differential constraints on action, structural power
co-constitutive, internal relations of structural positions...define what kinds of social beings
are.
16
The institutions and phenomena that surround us determine who we are, and how we
act. Marxs and Lenins writings can help clarify this. Capitalism, Marx argued, created a
specific relation of production - a manifestation of structural power - that of the capitalist and
the labourer. Furthermore, as this relation of production was so ingrained in the system, it
shaped the self-understanding of the labourers, and hence why Marx argued for the need for
class consciousness to be changed before a revolution could occur. One can see another
application of structural power in the writings of Aldous Huxley, where members of society
are conditioned into specific roles by the institutions and technologies that surround them
from birth.
17


The final conception concerns productive power, that of the shaping of systems of
signification and meaning. Here, discourse, the social processes and the systems of
knowledge through which meaning is produced, fixed, lived, experience, and transformed
18

are key. This concept echoes the work of Foucault, outlined above. Productive power can be
regarded as critical in any power analysis, as it shapes and helps to define what we consider
as a manifestation of power.

The biaxial taxonomy outlined above is a powerful theorising tool, and when we link the
various forms together, it can be used to help explain complex international scenarios-Barnett
and Duvall suggest the example of global governance. Institutional forms of power can thus
expose the governing bias of these institutions, whilst using compulsory power, we can see

16
M. Barnett & R. Duvall, Power in International Politics, International Organization, 59, no.1 (2005) p52
17
See Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (London, Chatto and Windus, 1932)
18
M. Barnett & R. Duvall, Power in International Politics, International Organization, 59, no.1 (2005) p55
the influence that the World Bank and IMF can exert on dependent countries, via the
imposition of development policies which are rewarded with financial aid. Productive
power, meanwhile, manifests itself via the guiding and steering [of] collective outcomes in
global social life.
19
Even something as widely recognised as human rights is subject to this
discourse. Barnett and Duval have thus created a multi-faceted conception of power which
goes beyond the arguably limited ideas proposed by previous scholars that provides a sturdy
apparatus with which to analyse power relations.

Stefano Guzzini has commented on what constructivism can lend to conceptual discussions
of power. We can firstly consider what power means. Guzzini contends that whilst we may
strive for theoretically neutral conceptual analyses, it is often impossible to isolate concepts
from the theories in which they are embedded and as a result, the analysis of concepts such
as power cannot be used as a mere means for explanation, wherein they would neutrally
assess the salience of competing theories.
20
As a result of this, any analyses necessarily
require a position of explanatory perspectivism. Guzzini also contributes to discussion of
what power does, suggesting that it plays an important role in that it indicates realms where
political action could have been different; or indeed where against apparent odds, it would
have been possible in the first place.
21
Guzzini also emphasises the importance of reflexivity,
as an analysis of power is part of the social construction of knowledge, suggesting that the
assignation of power is itself an exercise of power.
22



19
M. Barnett & R. Duvall, Power in International Politics, International Organization, 59, no.1 (2005) p61
20
S. Guzzini, The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis, Journal of International Studies, 33 (2005)
p503
21
Ibid. p508
22
Ibid.
Power is a multi-faceted concept that is of central importance in discussions of politics. It can
occur in many forms and has widespread effects, all of which needs to be accounted for if we
seek a fully rounded concept of power.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
M. Barnett & R. Duvall, Power in International Politics, International Organization, 59, no.1 (2005)
S. Burchill et. al. Theories of International Relations (Vol. 4) (New York, Palgrave, 2009)
S. Guzzini, The Limits of Neorealist Power Analysis, International Organization, 47, no.3 (1993)
S. Guzzini, The Concept of Power: A Constructivist Analysis, Journal of International Studies, 33 (2005)
P. Hirst, The Eighty Years Crisis, 1919-1999: Power, Review of International Studies, 24, no.5 (1998)
P. Hirst, Space and Power- Politics, War and Architecture (Cambridge, Polity, 2005)
S. Lukes (Ed.), Power (Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1986)
C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (Oxford, OUP, 2008)