{{short description|Ability to influence the behaviour of others}}
{{other uses of|Power}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2025|cs1-dates=l}}
{{Sociology|engvar=brandon}}
In [[political science]], '''power''' is the ability to direct the actions and conduct of others.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=McLean |first1=Iain |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8JkyAwAAQBAJ&dq=Machiavelli's%20answer%20rests%20on%20the%20interplay%20of%20two%20key%20classical%20concepts%20%E2%80%94%20fortune%20and%20virt%C3%BA%20.%20Machiavelli's%20concept%20of%20fortune%20is%20very%20much%20a%20Roman%20rather%20than%20a%20Christian%20inheritance%20.%20Fortune%20is%20not%20a%20synonym%20for%20'%20fate%20'%20or%20...&pg=PT474 |title=The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics |last2=McMillan |first2=Alistair |date=2009-02-26 |publisher=OUP Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-101827-5 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-10-11 |title=Definition of POWER |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power |access-date=2024-10-15 |website=www.merriam-webster.com |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last1=Barnett |first1=Michael |last2=Duvall |first2=Raymond |date=2005 |title=Power in International Politics |journal=International Organization |volume=59 |issue=1 |pages=39–75 |doi=10.1017/S0020818305050010 |jstor=3877878 |s2cid=3613655 |issn=0020-8183|doi-access=free }}</ref> Political power is usually exercised through [[government]] offices with authority, over political societies which are often termed [[State (polity)|states]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1=Rose | first1=Nikolas | last2=Miller | first2=Peter | title=Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government | journal=The British Journal of Sociology | date=1992 | volume=43 | issue=2 | pages=173–205 | doi=10.2307/591464 | jstor=591464 | url=https://doi.org/10.2307/591464 }}</ref> Power does not exclusively refer to the threat or use of force ([[coercion]]) by one actor against another, but may also be exerted through diffuse means (such as [[institution]]s).<ref>{{Citation |last1=Finnemore |first1=Martha |chapter=Puzzles about Power |date=2013 |chapter-url=https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970087.001.0001/acprof-9780199970087-chapter-1 |title=Back to Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970087.003.0001 |isbn=978-0-19-997008-7 |last2=Goldstein |first2=Judith |access-date=9 April 2022 |chapter-url-access=subscription }}</ref>

The term ''[[authority]]'' is often used for power that is perceived as [[Legitimacy (political)|legitimate]] or socially approved by the [[social structure]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Authority {{!}} Definition, Types & Uses {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/authority |access-date=2024-10-15 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref> Scholars have distinguished between [[soft power]] and [[hard power]].<ref>Wilson III, E. J. (2008). Hard power, soft power, smart power. The annals of the American academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 110-124.</ref><ref>Gray, Colin S. Hard power and soft power: the utility of military force as an instrument of policy in the 21st century. Lulu. com, 2011.</ref>

==Definition==
The concept of power in politics has been debated, with many thinkers offering differing definitions.<ref name="Parsons">https://www.jstor.org/stable/985582</ref><ref name="Dahl">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bs.3830020303</ref><ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=P8VWKHFmlVQC&lpg=PR10&ots=odj1f7Tt1j&lr&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref> Political scientist [[Robert Dahl]] views power as a form of "relations among people", wherein one party has an ability to command over another party.<ref name="Dahl"/> [[Hannah Arendt]] defined power as being an instrument of political rule, and disassociated power with the ability of an actor to use violence.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=7e08DAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA1&ots=DyWWOBWHLY&dq=power&lr&pg=PA60#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref> [[Max Weber]] defined power as "any chance (regardless of the basis of this chance) to carry through one’s own will", even against outright opposition.<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=_CqB6ZaTCqMC&lpg=PA36&dq=max%20weber%20on%20power&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>

== Types ==
===Soft power===
soft power is the ability to [[Sphere of influence|influence]] or [[Persuasion|persuade]] others through the use of persuasive means, as opposed to the use of force or [[coercion]], which is an aspect of [[hard power]]. <ref>https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-0714-4_1</ref>

===Hard power===
hard power is the use of [[military]] and [[economics|economic]] means to [[social influence|influence]] the behavior or interests of other political bodies. <ref>https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002716207312618</ref>This form of [[political]] power is often aggressive ([[coercion]]), and is most immediately effective when imposed by one political body upon another of less military and/or economic power.<ref name="hard">{{cite web|author=Copeland|first=Daryl|date=Feb 2, 2010|title=Hard Power Vs. Soft Power|url=http://www.themarknews.com/articles/895-hard-power-vs-soft-power|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120501050956/http://www.themarknews.com/articles/895-hard-power-vs-soft-power|archive-date=1 May 2012|access-date=26 April 2012|publisher=The Mark}}</ref>

===Authoritarian/Absolute===
{{excerpt|Regime#Authoritarian regimes}}

===Democratic===
{{excerpt|Regime#Democratic_regimes}}

===Oligarchic===
Minoritarianism is a [[neologism]] for a [[political structure]] or process in which a [[minority group]] of a population has a certain degree of primacy in that population's [[decision making]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/Fhu5gJzl3u4LwuErXoJxFO/Majority-minority-authority.html|title=Majority, minority, authority|first=Narayan|last=Ramachandran|date=October 6, 2013|website=Mint}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/2018/apr/17/in-india-is-it-secularism-or-minorityism-1802451.html|title=In India, is it Secularism or minorityism?|website=The New Indian Express|date=22 April 2018 }}</ref> with [[legislative power]] or [[Judiciary|judicial power]] being held or controlled by a minority group rather than [[majority rule|a majority that is representative of the population]]. Minoritarianism is sometimes used to describe '''minority rule''',<ref>{{Cite web | title=The Left's Embrace of Minority Rule {{!}} National Affairs | url=https://www.nationalaffairs.com/blog/detail/media/the-lefts-embrace-of-minority-rule | access-date=2026-07-27 | website=www.nationalaffairs.com}}</ref> rule by a dominant minority such as an ethnic group delineated by religion, language, or some other identifying factor.

==Authority==
{{excerpt|Authority}}

Political authority  grants members of a [[government]] the [[right to rule]] over citizens using [[coercion]] if necessary, while imposing an [[obligation]] on citizens to obey government orders (i.e., [[political obligation]]).<ref>{{cite book |last=Huemer |first=Michael |date=January 2013 |title=[[The Problem of Political Authority: An Examination of the Right to Coerce and the Duty to Obey]] |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan |page=5–7 |isbn=978-1137281654 |author-link=Michael Huemer}}</ref>

== Power politics ==
{{excerpt|power politics}}

== Effects ==
Power changes those in the position of power and those who are targets of that power.<ref>Forsyth, D.R. (2010). ''Group Dynamics'' (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.</ref>

=== Approach/inhibition theory ===
Developed by D. Keltner and colleagues,<ref>Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. ''Psychological Review, 110,'' 265–284.</ref> approach/inhibition theory assumes that having power and using power alters psychological states of individuals. The theory is based on the notion that most organisms react to environmental events in two common ways. The reaction of ''approach'' is associated with action, self-promotion, seeking rewards, increased energy and movement. ''Inhibition'', on the contrary, is associated with self-protection, avoiding threats or danger, vigilance, loss of motivation and an overall reduction in activity.

Overall, approach/inhibition theory holds that power promotes approach tendencies, while a reduction in power promotes inhibition tendencies.

=== Positive ===
[[File:Bronze sculpture of Barack and Michelle Obama at Barack Obama Plaza - 1.jpg|thumb|A statue of [[Barack Obama]] and [[Michelle Obama]] near [[Moneygall]], Ireland.]]
* Power prompts people to take action
* Makes individuals more responsive to changes within a group and its environment<ref>Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. ''Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40'', 151–192.</ref>
* Powerful people are more proactive, more likely to speak up, make the first move, and lead negotiation<ref>Magee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). "Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions". ''Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin'', 33, 200–212.
</ref> 
* Powerful people are more focused on the goals appropriate in a given situation and tend to plan more task-related activities in a work setting<ref>Guinote, A. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95:2,'' 237–252.</ref>
* Powerful people tend to experience more positive emotions, such as happiness and satisfaction, and they smile more than low-power individuals<ref>Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology: Special Issue on Social Power and Group Processes, 36, 497–509.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Why power makes people bolder {{!}} W. P. Carey News |url=https://news.wpcarey.asu.edu/20260311-why-power-makes-people-bolder |access-date=2026-08-27 |website=news.wpcarey.asu.edu}}</ref>
* Power is associated with optimism about the future because more powerful individuals focus their attention on more positive aspects of the environment<ref>Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A.D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. ''European Journal of Social Psychology, 36,'' 511–536.</ref>
* People with more power tend to carry out executive cognitive functions more rapidly and successfully, including internal control mechanisms that coordinate attention, decision-making, planning, and goal-selection<ref>Smith, P.K., N.B. Jostmann, A.D. Galinsky, W.W. van Dijk. 2008. Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychol. Sci. 19: 441–447.</ref>

=== Negative ===
*Powerful people are prone to take risky, inappropriate, or unethical decisions and often overstep their [[Personal boundaries|boundaries]]<ref>Emler, N. & Cook, T. (2001). Moral integrity in leadership: Why it matters and why it may be difficult to achieve. In Roberts, B. & Hogan, R. (Eds.). Personality psychology in the workplace. Washington, DC: APA Press (pp. 277–298).</ref><ref>Clark, R.D., & Sechrest, L.B. (1976). The mandate phenomenon. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,'' 1057–1061.</ref>
* They tend to generate negative emotional reactions in their subordinates, particularly when there is a conflict in the group<ref>Fodor, E.M., & Riordan, J.M. (1995). Leader power motive and group conflict as influences on leader behavior and group member self-affect. ''Journal of Research in Personality, 29,'' 418–431.</ref> 
* When individuals gain power, their self-evaluation become more positive, while their evaluations of others become more negative<ref>Georgesen, J. C., & Harris, M. J. (1998). Why's my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluation. ''Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2,'' 184–195.</ref>
* Power tends to weaken one's social attentiveness, which leads to difficulty understanding other people's point of view<ref>Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. ''Psychological Science, 17,'' 1068–1074.</ref>
* Powerful people also spend less time collecting and processing information about their subordinates and often perceive them in a stereotypical fashion<ref>Fiske, S.T. (1993a). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. ''American Psychologist, 48,'' 621–628.</ref>
* People with power tend to use more coercive tactics, increase social distance between themselves and subordinates, believe that non-powerful individuals are untrustworthy, and devalue work and ability of less powerful individuals<ref>Kipnis. D. (1974). The powerholders. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.). Perspectives on social power (pp. 82–122). Chicago; Aldine.</ref>

== Theories ==

=== Five bases of power ===
{{Main|French and Raven's five bases of power}}

In a now-classic study (1959),<ref>French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). 'The bases of social power,' in D. Cartwright (ed.) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 259–269.</ref> social psychologists [[John R. P. French]] and [[Bertram Raven]] developed a schema of sources of power by which to analyse how power plays work (or fail to work) in a specific relationship.

French and Raven argue that there are five significant categories of such qualities, while not excluding other minor categories. Further bases have since been proposed, in particular by [[Gareth Morgan (business theorist)|Gareth Morgan]] in his 1986 book, ''[[Images of Organization]]''.<ref>{{Citation|url=http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1873&context=utk_graddiss|title=Everyday Experiences of Power|date=August 2010|first=Kelly E.|last=de Moll|page=22|format=PDF|publisher=University of Tennessee|location=Knoxville, TN|type=Ph.D. dissertation|postscript=.|access-date=16 May 2014|archive-date=22 October 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211022074157/https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1873&context=utk_graddiss|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Expert power ====
{{Main|Expert power}}
[[Expert]] power is an individual's power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified. When they have knowledge and skills that enable them to understand a situation, suggest solutions, use solid judgment, and generally outperform others, then people tend to listen to them. When individuals demonstrate expertise, people tend to trust them and respect what they say. As subject-matter experts, their ideas will have more value, and others will look to them for [[leadership]] in that area.

==== Reward power ====
{{Main|Reward power}}

In terms of [[cancel culture]], the mass ostracization used to reconcile unchecked injustice and abuse of power is an "upward power". Policies for policing the internet against these processes as a pathway for creating due process for handling conflicts, abuses, and harm that is done through established processes are known as "downward power".<ref>{{cite book |last=Schein |first=Larry E. Greiner, Virginia E. |title=Power and organization development : mobilizing power to implement change |date=1988 |publisher=Addison-Wesley |location=Reading, Mass. |isbn=978-0201121858 |edition= Repr. with corrections.}}</ref>

==== Coercive power ====
{{Main|Coercive power}}
{{See also|Coercive control}}
[[File:Modern chain gang.jpg|thumb|A [[chain gang]] of prisoners serving their sentences under the authority of the [[Texas Department of Criminal Justice]] in the [[United States]].]]

[[Coercive]] power is the application of negative influences. It includes the ability to defer or withhold other rewards. This is a type of power commonly seen in the fashion industry by coupling with legitimate power; it is referred to in the industry-specific literature as "glamorization of structural domination and exploitation".<ref>{{Cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/sep/02/academic-exposing-ugly-reality-high-fashion-giulia-mensitieri| title=Chanel shoes, but no salary: How one woman exposed the scandal of the French fashion industry| newspaper=The Guardian| date=2 September 2018| last1=Marsh| first1=Stefanie| access-date=5 September 2018| archive-date=28 March 2023| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230328071256/https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/sep/02/academic-exposing-ugly-reality-high-fashion-giulia-mensitieri| url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Principles in interpersonal relationships ===
According to Laura K. Guerrero and Peter A. Andersen in ''Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships'', power in relationships is multifaceted. It can be perceived, relational, resource-based, and dependent on interest and commitment levels. While power often stems from controlling valued, scarce resources or having less dependence in a relationship, it is also shaped by behavior, social skills, and how others interpret one’s actions. Power can be enabling when used with confidence and skill, but disabling when it leads to manipulation, communication breakdowns, or relational dissatisfaction.<ref>Guerrero, Laura K., and Peter A. Andersen. ''Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships'', 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2011. Print. pp. 267–261</ref>

=== Cultural hegemony ===
In the [[Marxism|Marxist]] tradition, the [[Italy|Italian]] writer [[Antonio Gramsci]] elaborated on the role of [[ideology]] in creating a [[cultural hegemony]], which becomes a means of bolstering the power of [[capitalism]] and of the [[nation-state]]. Drawing on [[Niccolò Machiavelli]] in ''[[The Prince]]'' and trying to understand why there had been no [[Communist]] revolution in [[Western Europe]] while it was claimed there had been one in [[Russia]], Gramsci conceptualised this hegemony as a [[centaur]], consisting of two halves. The back end, the beast, represented the more classic material image of power: power through coercion, through brute force, be it physical or economic. But the capitalist hegemony, he argued, depended even more strongly on the front end, the human face, which projected power through 'consent'. In Russia, this power was lacking, allowing for a revolution. However, in Western Europe, specifically in [[Italy]], capitalism had succeeded in exercising ''consensual'' power, convincing the working classes that their interests were the same as those of capitalists. In this way, a revolution had been avoided.{{citation needed|date=June 2025}}

While Gramsci stresses the significance of ideology in power structures, Marxist-feminist writers such as Michele Barrett stress the role of ideologies in extolling the virtues of family life. The classic argument to illustrate this point of view is the use of women as a '[[reserve army of labour]]'. In wartime, it is accepted that women perform masculine tasks, while after the war, the roles are easily reversed. Therefore, according to Barrett, the destruction of capitalist economic relations is necessary but not sufficient for the liberation of women.<ref>Pip Jones, ''Introducing Social Theory'', Polity Press, Cambridge, 2008, p. 93.</ref>

=== Tarnow ===
Eugen Tarnow considers what power hijackers have over air plane passengers and draws similarities with power in the military.<ref>{{Citation|url=http://www.eiilmuniversity.ac.in/coursepack/humanities/political_theory.pdf |title=Political Theory |type=Course pack |page=27 |publisher=Eiilm University |location=Sikkim |postscript=. |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140517153913/http://www.eiilmuniversity.ac.in/coursepack/humanities/political_theory.pdf |archive-date=17 May 2014 }}</ref> He shows that power over an individual can be amplified by the presence of a group. If the group conforms to the leader's commands, the leader's power over an individual is greatly enhanced, while if the group does not conform, the leader's power over an individual is non-existent.

=== Foucault ===
{{See also|Biopower}}
For [[Michel Foucault]], the real power will always rely on the ignorance of its agents. No single human, group, or actor runs the dispositif (machine or apparatus), but power is dispersed through the apparatus as efficiently and silently as possible, ensuring its agents do whatever is necessary. It is because of this action that power is unlikely to be detected and remains elusive to 'rational' investigation. Foucault quotes a text reputedly written by political economist [[Jean Baptiste Antoine Auget de Montyon]], entitled {{Lang|fr|Recherches et considérations sur la population de la France}} (1778), but turns out to be written by his secretary [[Jean-Baptise Moheau]] (1745–1794), and by emphasizing [[biologist]] [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]], who constantly refers to [[milieu]]s as a plural adjective and sees into the milieu as an expression as nothing more than water, air, and light confirming the genus within the milieu, in this case the human species, relates to a function of the population and its social and political interaction in which both form an artificial and natural milieu. This milieu (both artificial and natural) appears as a target of intervention for power, according to Foucault, which is radically different from the previous notions on sovereignty, territory, and disciplinary space interwoven into social and political relations that function as a species (biological species).<ref>Michel Foucault, ''Lectures at the College de France, 1977–78: Security, Territory, Population'', 2007, pp. 1–17.</ref> Foucault originated and developed the concept of "docile bodies" in his book ''[[Discipline and Punish]]''. He writes, "A body is docile that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Discipline and punish : the birth of the prison|author=Foucault, Michel|date=1995|publisher=Vintage Books|isbn=978-0679752554|edition= 2nd  |location=New York}}</ref>

=== Clegg ===
[[Stewart Clegg]] proposes another three-dimensional model with his "circuits of power"<ref>{{harvnb|Deji|2011|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Friw38mN7-kC&pg=PA267 267]}}</ref> theory. This model likens the production and organization of power to an electric circuit board consisting of three distinct interacting circuits: episodic, dispositional, and facilitative. These circuits operate at three levels: two are macro and one is micro. The ''episodic circuit'' is at the micro level and is constituted of irregular exercise of power as agents address feelings, communication, conflict, and resistance in day-to-day interrelations. The outcomes of the episodic circuit are both positive and negative. The ''dispositional circuit'' is constituted of macro level rules of practice and socially constructed meanings that inform member relations and legitimate authority. The ''facilitative circuit'' is constituted of macro level technology, environmental contingencies, job design, and networks, which empower or disempower and thus punish or reward agency in the episodic circuit. All three independent circuits interact at "obligatory passage points", which are channels for [[empowerment]] or disempowerment.

=== Galbraith ===
[[John Kenneth Galbraith]] (1908–2006) in ''[[The Anatomy of Power]]'' (1983)<ref>{{cite book |last= Galbraith|first= John Kenneth|author-link= John Kenneth Galbraith |title= The Anatomy of Power|year= 1983|title-link= The Anatomy of Power}}
</ref>
summarizes the '''types of power''' as "{{linktext|condign}}" (based on [[Force (law)|force]]), "compensatory" (through the use of various resources) or "conditioned" (the result of [[persuasion]]),{{citation needed|date=April 2023}} and the '''sources of power''' as "[[personality]]" (individuals), "[[property]]" (power-wielders' material resources), and/or "[[organization]]al" (from sitting higher in an organisational power structure).<ref>{{cite book
 |last1        = Galbraith
 |first1       = John Kenneth
 |author-link1 = John Kenneth Galbraith
 |year         = 1983
 |orig-date    = 1983
 |title        = The Anatomy of Power
 |url          = https://books.google.com/books?id=d_y3AAAAIAAJ
 |edition      = reprint
 |publisher    = Houghton Mifflin
 |page         = 7
 |isbn         = 978-0395344002
 |access-date  = 11 April 2023
 |quote        = [...] there are also numerous combinations of the sources of power and the related instruments. Personality, property, and organization are combined in various strengths.
 |archive-date = 11 April 2023
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20230411041856/https://books.google.com/books?id=d_y3AAAAIAAJ
 |url-status   = live
}}</ref>

=== Gene Sharp ===
[[Gene Sharp]], an American professor of political science, believes that power ultimately depends on its bases. Thus, a political regime maintains power because people accept and obey its dictates, laws, and policies. Sharp cites the insight of [[Étienne de La Boétie]].

Sharp's key theme is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state – regardless of its particular structural organization – ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power.<ref>{{cite book|last=Sharp|first=Gene|title=From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation|publisher=The Albert Einstein Institution|location=East Boston, MA|url=http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf|year=2010|edition=4th U.S.|isbn=978-1-880813-09-6|access-date=16 October 2014|archive-date=28 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180828034018/http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf|url-status=dead}} (See [[From dictatorship to democracy|book article]].)</ref>

His work is thought to have been influential in the overthrow of [[Slobodan Milošević]], in the 2011 [[Arab Spring]], and other [[Nonviolent resistance|nonviolent]] revolutions.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Arrow|first1=Ruaridh|title=Gene Sharp: Author of the nonviolent revolution rulebook|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12522848|website=BBC News|date=21 February 2011|access-date=20 July 2018|archive-date=21 February 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110221153028/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12522848|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Björn Kraus ===
[[Björn Kraus]] deals with the [[epistemology|epistemological]] perspective on power regarding the question of the possibilities of interpersonal influence by developing a special form of [[constructivist epistemology|constructivism]] (named [[relational constructivism]]).<ref>Heiko Kleve: ''Vom Erweitern der Möglichkeiten''. In: [[Bernhard Pörksen]] (ed.): ''Schlüsselwerke des Konstruktivismus''. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden/Germany 2011. pp. 506–519 [509].</ref> Instead of focusing on the valuation and distribution of power, he asks first and foremost what the term can describe at all.<ref name=Kraus2014>{{cite journal|last1=Kraus|first1=Björn|title=Introducing a Model for Analyzing the Possibilities of Power, Help and Control|journal=Social Work & Society|date=2014|volume=12|issue=1|url=http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:464-sws-582|access-date=12 August 2014}}</ref> Coming from [[Max Weber]]'s definition of power,<ref>Max Weber: ''Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie''. Mohr, Tübingen/Germany 1972. S.28</ref> he realizes that the term power has to be split into "instructive power" and "destructive power".<ref>{{cite book|last=Kraus|first=Björn|chapter=Soziale Arbeit – Macht – Hilfe und Kontrolle. Die Entwicklung und Anwendung eines systemisch-konstruktivistischen Machtmodells|editor1-last=Kraus|editor1-first=Björn|editor2-last=Krieger|editor2-first=Wolfgang|title=Macht in der Sozialen Arbeit – Interaktionsverhältnisse zwischen Kontrolle, Partizipation und Freisetzung|publisher=Jacobs|place=Lage, Germany|date=2011|pages=95–118|chapter-url=http://www.webnetwork-nordwest.de/dokumente/kraus_macht2.pdf|access-date=10 May 2013|archive-date=4 November 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104035740/http://www.webnetwork-nordwest.de/dokumente/kraus_macht2.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Rp|105}}<ref name=Kraus2013/>{{Rp|126}} More precisely, instructive power means the chance to determine the actions and thoughts of another person, whereas destructive power means the chance to diminish the opportunities of another person.<ref name=Kraus2014/> How significant this distinction really is, becomes evident by looking at the possibilities of rejecting power attempts: Rejecting instructive power is possible; rejecting destructive power is not. By using this distinction, proportions of power can be analyzed in a more sophisticated way, helping to sufficiently reflect on matters of responsibility.<ref name=Kraus2013>See Björn Kraus: ''Erkennen und Entscheiden. Grundlagen und Konsequenzen eines erkenntnistheoretischen Konstruktivismus für die Soziale Arbeit''. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim/Basel 2013.</ref>{{Rp|139 f.}} This perspective permits people to get over an "either-or-position" (either there is power or there is not), which is common, especially in epistemological discourses about power theories,<ref>Reimund Böse, Günter Schiepek: ''Systemische Theorie und Therapie: ein Handwörterbuch''. Asanger, Heidelberg/Germany 1994.</ref><ref>Gregory Bateson: ''Ökologie des Geistes: anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven''. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main/Germany 1996.</ref><ref>Heinz von Foerster: ''Wissen und Gewissen. Versuch einer Brücke''. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main/Germany 1996.</ref> and to introduce the possibility of an "as well as-position".<ref name=Kraus2013/>{{Rp|120}}

=== Counterpower ===
{{Main|Dual power}}
The term 'counter-power' (sometimes written 'counterpower') is used in a range of situations to describe the countervailing force that can be utilised by the oppressed to counterbalance or erode the power of elites. A general definition has been provided by the anthropologist David Graeber as 'a collection of social institutions set in opposition to the state and capital: from self-governing communities to radical labor unions to popular militias'.<ref name="David Graeber">{{cite book|last=Graeber|first=David|title=Fragments of an anarchist anthropology|year=2004|publisher=Prickly Paradigm Press|location=Chicago|isbn=978-0-9728196-4-0|page=24|edition= 2nd pr.}} The examples given (self-governing communities, radical labour unions, popular militias) reflect the Idea/Economics/Physical taxonomy</ref> Graeber also notes that counter-power can also be referred to as 'anti-power' and 'when institutions [of counter-power] maintain themselves in the face of the state, this is usually referred to as a 'dual power' situation'.<ref name="David Graeber"/> [[Tim Gee]], in his 2011 book ''Counterpower: Making Change Happen'',<ref name="gee">{{cite book|last=Gee|first=Tim|title=Counter power : making change happen|date=2011|publisher=World Changing|location=Oxford|isbn=978-1780260327}}</ref> put forward the theory that those disempowered by governments' and elite groups' power can use ''counterpower'' to counter this.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Newton|first=Mark|title=Counterpower: Making Change Happen (book review)|journal=The Ecologist|date=17 November 2011|url=http://www.theecologist.org/reviews/books/1135297/counterpower_making_change_happen.html|access-date=8 January 2016|archive-date=7 February 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230207202614/http://www.theecologist.org/reviews/books/1135297/counterpower_making_change_happen.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In Gee's model, ''counterpower'' is split into three categories: ''idea counterpower'', ''economic counterpower'', and ''physical counterpower''.<ref name="gee" />

Although the term has come to prominence through its use by participants in the global justice/[[anti-globalization movement]] of the 1990s onwards,<ref>{{cite journal|issue=360|date=September 2003|journal=New Internationalist|first=Graeme|last=Chesters|title=Ideas about power: Representation and counterpower|url=http://newint.org/features/2003/09/01/theories-of-power/|quote=Counterpower is the shadow realm of alternatives, a hall of mirrors held up to the dominant logic of capitalism – and it is growing.|access-date=16 October 2014|archive-date=22 April 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230422013921/https://newint.org/features/2003/09/01/theories-of-power|url-status=live}}</ref> the word has been used for at least 60 years; for instance, [[Martin Buber]]'s 1949 book 'Paths in Utopia' includes the line 'Power abdicates only under the stress of counter-power'.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Buber|first1=Martin|title=Paths in Utopia|date=1996|publisher=Syracuse University Press|location=Syracuse, NY|isbn=978-0815604211|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=MXGSnCcRaUwC&pg=PA104 104]|edition= Reprint|orig-year=1949}}</ref><ref name=Gee2011Introduction>{{cite book|last=Gee|first=Tim|chapter=Introduction|title=Counter Power Making Change Happen|date=2011|chapter-url=http://www.newint.org/books/politics/2011/09/20/reviews%2C%20introduction%20%26%20contents.pdf|isbn=978-1-78026-032-7|location=Oxford|publisher=New Internationalist|access-date=16 October 2014|archive-date=17 November 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151117213728/http://newint.org/books/politics/2011/09/20/reviews%2C%20introduction%20%26%20contents.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Rp|13}}

== Reactions ==

=== Tactics ===
A number of studies demonstrate that harsh power tactics (e.g. punishment (both personal and impersonal), rule-based sanctions, and non-personal rewards) are less effective than soft tactics (expert power, referent power, and personal rewards).<ref>Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Social power. In A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.</ref><ref>Pierro, A., Cicero, L., & Raven, B. H. (2008). Motivated compliance with bases of social power. ''Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38,'' 1921–1944.</ref> It is probably because harsh tactics generate hostility, depression, fear, and anger, while soft tactics are often reciprocated with cooperation.<ref>Krause D. E. (2006) Power and influence in the context of organizational innovation. In Schriesheim C. A., Neider L. L. (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: new empirical and theoretical perspectives (A volume in research in management). Hartford, CT: Information Age. Pp. 21–58.</ref> Coercive and reward power can also lead group members to lose interest in their work, while instilling a feeling of autonomy in one's subordinates can sustain their interest in work and maintain high productivity even in the absence of monitoring.<ref>Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Supervisors' beliefs and subordinates' intrinsic motivation: A behavioral confirmation analysis. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,'' 331–340.</ref>

Coercive influence creates conflict that can disrupt entire group functioning. When disobedient group members are severely reprimanded, the rest of the group may become more disruptive and uninterested in their work, leading to negative and inappropriate activities spreading from one troubled member to the rest of the group. This effect is called ''Disruptive contagion or ripple effect'' and it is strongly manifested when reprimanded member has a high status within a group, and authority's requests are vague and ambiguous.<ref>Kounin, J., & Gump, P. (1958). The ripple effect in discipline. ''Elementary School Journal, 59,'' 158–162.</ref>

=== Resistance to coercive influence ===
Coercive influence can be tolerated when the group is successful,<ref>Michener, H. A., & Lawler, E. J. (1975). Endorsement of formal leaders: An integrative model. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,'' 216–223.</ref> the leader is trusted, and the use of coercive tactics is justified by group norms.<ref>Michener, H. A., & Burt, M.R. (1975) Components of authority as determinants of compliance. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31'', 606–614.</ref> Furthermore, coercive methods are more effective when applied frequently and consistently to punish prohibited actions.<ref>Molm, L. D. (1994) Is Punishment Effective? Coercive Strategies in Social Exchange. ''Social Psychology Quarterly, 57,'' 75–94.</ref>

However, in some cases, group members chose to resist the authority's influence. When low-power group members have a feeling of shared identity, they are more likely to form a ''Revolutionary Coalition'', a subgroup formed within a larger group that seeks to disrupt and oppose the group's authority structure.<ref>Lawler, E. J. (1975a). An experimental study of factors affecting the mobilization of revolutionary coalitions. ''Sociometry, 38,'' 163–179.</ref> Group members are more likely to form a revolutionary coalition and resist an authority when authority lacks referent power, uses coercive methods, and asks group members to carry out unpleasant assignments. It is because these conditions create [[Reactance (psychology)|reactance]], individuals strive to reassert their sense of freedom by affirming their agency for their own choices and consequences.{{citation needed|date=June 2025}}

=== Kelman's compliance-identification-internalization theory of conversion ===
Herbert Kelman<ref>[null Kelman, H. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. ''Journal of Conflict Resolution'', 1, 51–60].</ref><ref>Kelman, H.C. Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.</ref> identified three basic, step-like reactions that people display in response to coercive influence: [[Compliance (psychology)|compliance]], [[Identification (psychology)|identification]], and [[Internalization (psychology)|internalization]]. This theory explains how groups convert hesitant recruits into zealous followers over time.

At the stage of ''compliance,'' group members comply with authority's demands, but personally do not agree with them. If authority does not monitor the members, they will probably not obey.

''Identification'' occurs when the target of the influence admires and therefore imitates the authority, mimics authority's actions, values, characteristics, and takes on behaviours of the person with power. If prolonged and continuous, identification can lead to the final stage – internalization.

When ''internalization'' occurs, individual adopts the induced behaviour because it is congruent with his/her value system. At this stage, group members no longer carry out authority orders but perform actions that are congruent with their personal beliefs and opinions. Extreme obedience often requires internalization.

== See also ==
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
* {{annotated link|Authority bias}}
* {{annotated link|Authority distribution}}
* {{annotated link|Discourse of power}}
* {{annotated link|Economic power}}
* {{annotated link|Pluralism (political theory)}}
* {{annotated link|Power (international relations)}}
* {{annotated link|Power sharing}}
* {{annotated link|Power vacuum}}
* {{annotated link|Separation of powers}}
* {{annotated link|Social control}}
* {{annotated link|Speaking truth to power}}
{{div col end}}

== References ==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==Further reading==
* [[Evan Osnos|Osnos, Evan]], "Ruling-Class Rules: How to thrive in the power elite – while declaring it your enemy", ''[[The New Yorker]]'', 29 January 2024, pp.&nbsp;18–23. "In the nineteen-twenties... American elites, some of whom feared a [[Bolshevik revolution]], consented to reform... Under [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]... the U.S. raised taxes, took steps to protect [[labor union|union]]s, and established a [[minimum wage]]. The costs, [[Peter Turchin|[Peter] Turchin]] writes, 'were borne by the American [[ruling class]].'... Between the nineteen-thirties and the nineteen-seventies, a period that scholars call the [[Great Compression]], economic equality narrowed, except among Black Americans... But by the nineteen-eighties the Great Compression was over. As the rich grew richer than ever, they sought to turn their money into [[political power]]; spending on politics soared." (p.&nbsp;22.) "[N]o democracy can function well if people are unwilling to lose power – if a generation of leaders... becomes so entrenched that it ages into [[gerontocracy]]; if one of two major parties denies the arithmetic of elections; if a cohort of the ruling class loses status that it once enjoyed and sets out to salvage it." (p.&nbsp;23.)

==External links==
{{wikiquote|Power}}
{{Commons category|Political power}}
* Vatiero M. (2009), [http://sites.google.com/site/massimilianovatiero/book ''Understanding Power. A 'Law and Economics' Approach''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200730213500/https://sites.google.com/site/massimilianovatiero/book |date=30 July 2020 }}, [[VDM Verlag]]. {{ISBN|978-3639202656}}
{{Political philosophy}}
{{international power}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Power (social and political)}}
[[Category:Power (social and political)| ]]
[[Category:Baruch Spinoza]]
[[Category:Harassment and bullying]]
[[Category:Concepts in political philosophy]]
[[Category:Political concepts]]
[[Category:Majority–minority relations]]
[[Category:Michel Foucault]]
[[Category:Social concepts]]
[[Category:Sociological terminology]]