The dimensions of power need closer examination.
force can, of course, give its holder the possibility of control. It
long as it is forcefully superior. But its very simplicity and
it vulnerable and breakable. Naked force can be easily evaluated and
It is like a piece of stone; it holds only by its weight and rigidity;
hits other rigid phenomena weaker than itself, it breaks them; when it
encounters superior force, it breaks. It can only be a part of the more
and flexible phenomenon of power and should not be confused with it.
need to add here a note on terminology -- Keeping in
mind endnote 8,
Chapter 1. In our dissection of power we are giving
strict connotations to terms which in a broader sense can each be used
synonyms of power. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that terms
them cultural, linguistic and ideological biases. In linguistic terms,
languages provide more or less flexibility for dealing with the concept
power. For example, the French language distinguishes between puissance and pouvoir. The first
closer to force and strength but not quite
synonymous with them ‑‑ as the French language has also the term force. Puissance is a more palpable
concept of power.
It is used,
for example, to identify foreign powers: les
puissances étrangères ‑‑ those powers whose presence
is felt at
the border. The term is also used for energy such as electric power. Pouvoir has a more complex connotation
and is more easily convoluted with authority. Pouvoir – as
distinct from its Latin origin potestas – is both a noun and
a verb. It is a doing power. In German, Macht, which
stands for power, has a dynamic significance and is
related to action
through the verb machen. In English, Macht
turned into might and potestas and pouvoir turned into power. Both without a verb. Power is
something you can do; it is something to have and to be.
our comparison of power and brute force, we could say that power has
potentialities of adaptation, resistance and pressure. In its encounter
superior but simpler force it does not break, it can contract or
withhold its potentialities without being irremediably crushed or
in a favorable position, it can put on the rigidity of steel and give
adversary the fatal blow. It is the phenomenon which has retracted, yet
kept its potentialities and can make its pressure felt. The phenomenon
been squeezed and takes its new squeezed shape without potentialities
pressure is not, in our analogy of power, a rubber ball or a spring. It
piece of dough! Power is by its potentiokinetic presence.
of the movements of the German battleship Tirpitz towards the P.O.
to Soviet Union in the Arctic in W.W.II, noted: “The
potential threat which they created had caused the scattering of
the convoy. Thus their mere presence in these waters had directly
to a remarkable success for them.”
human terms, within the spectrum of brute force we can identify
(muscular) at one extreme, and certain aspects of stubbornness,
determination ‑‑ individual or collective ‑‑ at the
other extreme. These latter intangible factors are included within the
of brute force because when certain character traits such as
fanaticism reach the point of rigidified behavioral patterns they
comparable to brute force. The propulsion they produce is forceful and
its rigidity and directness, vulnerable and breakable.
for example, the character traits of Ayatollah Khomeyni of Iran in the
In the Iran‑Iraq war of 1980‑1988, with dogged stubbornness he
mobilized his fanatical troops to withstand the shock of Iraqi attack.
when there came the opportunity in July 1987 – when Iran had the
and Saddam Hussein had accepted the United Nations cease‑fire
– Khomeyni was not flexible enough to take advantage of it. While the
involved more complex power components which we shall develop later,
in point here is that Khomeyni's vengeful stubbornness was a
factor in the
continuation of the fighting to the detriment of Iran.
course, as it is for other sources of power, the evaluation of
brute force is
subjective and its outcome relative. .Within the power complex, the
is that if B submits to A's forcible
command it is because B finds submitting to A more agreeable than the consequences
of A's coercive punishment. The
assumption is subject to B's perception
of pain and pleasure and his relationship with A. A
masochist perceives pain differently from a paranoid.
means at a power's disposal are obviously of great importance. By means
refer to a spectrum extending from primary tools and weapons, which are
to the force end of the spectrum such as a stick, to more subtle means
money and wealth. We are using the term "means" in its stricter sense
‑‑ close to its material and instrumental characteristics. The term "means" can, of course,
be given a broad connotation, particularly in the combination of
ends, as done, for example, by Hobbes, mentioned earlier. In that context, some have even gone so far
as to emphasize the preponderance of means over the ends. In the words
Gandhi: "They say 'means are after
all means'. I would say 'means are after all everything'. As the means
end. There is no wall of separation between means and end. Indeed the
has given us control (and that, too, very limited) over means, none
end. Realization of the goal is in exact proportion to that of the
is a proposition that admits of no exception".. It is, of course, a question of semantics
and what we want the term to cover. Gandhi is using the term "means"
in a much broader sense than our meaning. As we noted in our discussion
force in the last section, terms can be given different connotations.
broader sense, means can be used as a synonym for power; in particular
coupled with ends. What Gandhi says is that one needs power to achieve
used in that broader sense, the coupling of means and ends raises
philosophical debate in different cultural and ideological contexts.
question becomes that of the justification of power's
arbitrariness on its
course to attain a given goal. Such are, for example, the exercises of
revolutionary regimes. That the doings of power have to be justified
the presence of a value system to which the power claims or wishes to
Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat, whose goal is the
the workers and the establishment of human rights, may exploit the
oppress the people on its way to achieve the ultimate goal. Of course,
which does not submit to a value system and does not aspire to
legitimized recognition is free from the means/ends constraints.
narrower usage of the term "means" here – limiting its connotation
to instrumental and material sources of power -- permits us to
components of power more closely and better analyze their areas of
position from which power is exercised is another crucial factor. The
illustration given earlier of A atop
the wall is at the primitive end of the spectrum. Let us use that
to make a first assessment of the three different components singled
far. A was in a favorable position
atop the wall, his means were the stone and the lever, and he should
the force to move them. As in the case of force and means, position can
spectrum going from the simple instance of a strategically favorable
to complex social situations. The
president of a bank, the governor of a
state, the justice of the peace, each holds a position conducive to
However, the aspect of the position we are considering here is not
identical with what in those titles coincides with authority. What
presently considering is neither an office, nor exactly the right to
that it legitimizes.
It is the power potential that a position can provide beyond the
its formal authority. Chamberlin, Churchill, Macmillan, and
Thatcher were all
British Prime Ministers. Of course, they exercised their authority
different circumstances and conjunctures. But it would be
unreasonable to deny
that, abstraction made of the circumstances and conjunctures, the kind
quality of the power each wielded was different.
bank president has the authority to sign the grant of loans. But he
mostly on the advice of his experts. In performing that function
he may not be
doing more than a post office clerk who has the authority to notarize
signatures. Beyond that simple signature, however, the bank president
position which can radiate power. That depends very much on the person
use he makes of the other sources at his disposal to wield power by
his position. The bank president who exercises his duties strictly for
management of the bank and does not have a power base – inside and
outside the bank
‑‑ which inclines him to favor one direction as distinct from
another, is not using his position for those particular power ends.
he does not, he may not last long in his position unless he is there to
dynamic concept of position leads us to further sources of power. A
tap its connections with other powers ‑ not only vertically, but also
laterally and diagonally to strengthen its own resources. Power A may call on power C for help in the A/B power relationship and return help
to C in another context. The lateral
connection between powers in the fluid area between their
that they perceive mutual benefit and compatibility and convergence in
interests as compared to other combinations: The imperative of
connection leads powers to networking. In our earlier
classification of power
relationships we did not include a convergent power relationship.
convergence, to the extent that it is lateral connection, while
"relationship", does not necessarily create a "power
relationship". As the fluid area between power complexes that have
connections is filled by their respective expansions, the lateral
may evolve into diagonal relationships which could be symbiotic or
and eventually turn into a hierarchy. In that sense connection and
are, as we shall see later, sine qua non components
of power which, besides being relational, is also hierarchical.
to Parsons, "While the structure of
economic power is... lineally quantitative, simply a matter of more
that of political power is hierarchical; that is, of higher and
The greater power is power over the lesser, not merely more
power than the lesser. " Of course, this qualification implies
Without relationship and connection, it is not realistic to compare the
of a Soviet farm cooperative manager in Siberia with those of the
Sheikh of Ras
el Kheyma, a banker in London or a Medellin drug baron. Even where
relations exist but direct connections have not been established, one
relational situation may not imply another. For instance, it does not
necessarily follow that because A is
more powerful than B, and B is more
powerful than C, A
is more powerful that C. The nature
of the relationships may not be comparable, and as long as they are not
connected in a power relationship ‑‑ whether by the intermediary of B or otherwise ‑‑ we
cannot say that A has power over C.
The AB relationship may, for example, be professional,
while the B/C relationship may be paternal or
assumption, however, is that where power relations exist, hierarchical
imperatives arise. Even the lateral mutual help connection will not
remain on a par and will be subject to the interplay of the whole
OF PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE
Carrying on with
secure C's cooperation, A may need to
persuade C that the product of their mutual
assistance will benefit both of them. If A
has a good power of persuasion he may draw a picture showing all the
to C, although, in fact, in the long
run the outcome may be more profitable to A.
This eventuality brings us to the power of persuasion as yet another
power. Persuading B to do i' in a
vertical power relationship is
also one of the possibilities for A
instead of using his force or material means. Depending on its
sphere and duration, persuasion could serve as one of the factors for
legitimization of power into authority, which we shall discuss later.
persuade implies the capacity to influence or to have influence. Of
simple fact of having influence may not involve a power relationship.
illustrate our point, suppose you told your friend in a restaurant that
certain stock was likely to rise on the market, and someone next to
overheard your conversation and as a result bought that stock ‑‑
something he would not have done otherwise. You have influenced him but
have not consciously exerted power upon him. Like other ingredients of
only that part of influence which connects effectively will be part of
our specification of influence as one of the ingredients of power
The gradation from "having an influence on” to "having control over"
can be established in the potentio‑kinetic sense. The effect of A's action on B may be the creation of
a disposition, or rather predisposition,
for a changed behavior in the future. B
may not have complied the first time, but if he did the next time it
because the leftover of A's last
influence magnified the influence exerted upon him this time. That is, B would not have complied with A's
desire or command this time if the
last event had not taken place.
may equally conceive of situations where the earlier influence may have
adverse effect on attempts at later control. Take for instance the
complex inculcated by the parents into a child against stealing and
child's inhibition to do so when asked by his parents in a desperate
situation. We can extend that analogy to the consequences of unfair
of an adversary's population in a conflict by a nation upholding
principles ‑‑ the case in point is the public and media outcry in
the United States against the use of "Agent Orange" in Vietnam.
potentio‑kinetic concept implies, of course, that the earlier influence
and later control should be part of a continuum within a given power
If gang‑leader A's threats do not induce member B to
obey but create enough predisposition in him to obey later as
a soldier faced with a superior threat from sergeant C, B's
obedience to C should not be counted as the power of A over B.
B's inner disposition,
however, is a
factor that should be taken into account. We are thus recognizing the
outer properties of certain sources of power. It is in the
dynamics of the power complex that the internal properties of its
become effective. The external manifestations, however, become part of
power complex insofar as they correspond to an inner reality. That
or may not correspond to the external manifestations, i. e., looking
in reality being tough or, as we shall see later, being aware of its
exterior manifestations by the entity emitting it.
CHARISMA AND REPUTATION
The influence exerted
on the eavesdropper in our earlier example in the restaurant may have
to a confident tone. In other words, the apparent self‑confidence of
person making the statement. Here we are speaking of the external
self‑confidence which may involve no power control. In a power
as mentioned above, it should be coupled with consciousness.
In the long run, apparent self‑confidence
can remain a component of power if it reflects inner self‑confidence
to the extent the person emitting it is conscious of it. This
prerequisite has a reality of its own independent of the former; i.e.,
who has little inner self‑confidence may be conscious of the fact that
of some elements of his exterior appearance and personality, such as
he radiates self‑confidence, or he may discover that certain behaviors
attitudes indicate self‑confidence and may adopt them. These are, of
course, components of consciousness which we shall deal with shortly.
however, the point should be made that "acting" self‑confident
develops into a tool for attaining other components of power: For
certain contexts – such as is often the case in the United States – one
crucial criteria in the selection of decision‑makers is the
of the capacity to make quick decisions. When a decision is called for,
clever aspirant to power takes the initiative of taking the decision –
he has sufficient reasons for doing it or not ‑‑ and distinguishes
himself as a leader and a quick decision‑maker. Keeping ahead of his
mistakes – where he has erred – he may thus advance on the social
acquire other sources of power.
self‑confidence can thus be counted as a source of power. Its impact
becomes evident when it is combined with other ingredients: force,
position used with selfconfidence; and self‑confidence as a
influence and the persuasive process. Charisma, mentioned in that
be a characteristic in its own right. But it is seldom separable from
of persuasion and self‑confidence. It may, of course, happen that a
charismatic person is not necessarily self‑confident, or that he
rather than persuades.
in the restaurant, we may find that the eavesdropper is influenced
speaker's reputation. He may be influenced even by the reputation of
restaurant! Suppose he is an amateur investor having lunch in a
Wall Street known for being the rendez‑vous of financial experts.
his neighbor at the next table, who behaves like a habitu6 of the
for a stock exchange expert he may be impressed by what he overhears
can be produced by other components of power. Consider the
combining means (money and mass media) with persuasive techniques
mass media programs based on social psychology) and through publicity
propaganda creating a given power image. Reputation, however, implies a
continuum. In just about all human cultures, and even among some
pedigree can serve as a source of power. It is the reputation the
inherited that produces the image. Where the name is known, a
assumed rich until proven otherwise.
above all, reputation is
the manifestation of the potentio‑kinetic nature of power. It is a
present dimension of power, based on the experience of its past
the potentials available to it for future action. The hords of
became invincible as their reputation preceded them.
the human context, all this, of course, implies knowledge and
know‑how which, beyond implying specialized
skills, should include the general
capacity to analyze, to evaluate, and to draw appropriate conclusions
action ‑ including timing, improvisation as well as organization and
planning. It is this capacity that can establish
the relative value of the components of power, even the intangible ones
self‑confidence and reputation. A power can combine and exploit
potentials to extents which may exceed the possibilities of any one of
components in isolation. Its potentials include its awareness of
manifestations of its properties not corresponding to its inner
its capacity to use them, in other words, bluff.
Courage and risk‑taking are
components of power. In its analysis of possibilities, a power should
its power position to other power complexes in the context of
environment. When Churchill asked his chiefs of staff on British
to face the Germans, they replied:
conclusion is that prima facie Germany has most of the cards;
real test is whether the morale of our fighting personnel and civil
will counterbalance the numerical and material advantages which Germany
We believe it will.”
Later events proved
knowledge factor is so important that it has become the subject of
simplification for those who are in search of power but are incapable
essentially absorbing it. Knowledge has thus been reduced to
"Information is power," so the saying goes. But information is only a
tool of power which enhances power insofar as a power knows how to
Francis Bacon, that old hand at using different variations of power,
had said nam et ipsa scientia potestas est. Information is a most important tool for
power. But if the capacity to use it is not present, information will
computer ticking in the desert.
does not imply that the powerful "possesses" all the sources of
power. Knowledge means knowledge about the availability of the sources
and the capacity of combining and using them. Where A
wants B to do something
that it would not have otherwise done, and where C has
strong and agile muscles and D has a club, A can exert
power over B if it persuades D to
give the club to C and C to hold the
club over B's head
so that the latter complies with the wishes of A. A, for all that matters, may
be a midget.
analytical and evaluative capacities of a power then cover not only the
consideration of its own relationship with another power, but also the
and evaluation of the conflicting natures of other powers or simply
textures and shades of those powers in their relationships. Thus one
complex may use other powers against each other or combine some of them
some others in situations beneficial to itself. Great Britain remained
power through the 18th and 19th centuries partly because she
played this balancing game in the European power complex.
it should be emphasized that while cognition, consciousness, will,
and the capacity to manipulate information have been enumerated as
of power, wisdom and sagacity have not been included as its sine
qua non characteristics. While
intelligence and cognitive elements of wisdom can be used for power
wisdom and sagacity in themselves may not aspire to power. Indeed,
fraught with powerful wisdom midgets.
parenthetical remark leads us to two "factors" of social power,
namely, competition and ambition. They
are not sources of power
but rather propulsing factors for the realization of power. They are
manifestations of the will to power and domination drive discussed
account for the existence of powerful wisdom midgets. History is
short of philosopher kings. What it is rich in are ambitious, shrewd
manipulating the sources of power to get on top of the heap; modelling
themselves after The Prince of
Machiavelli rather than taking inspiration from the Meditations
of Marcus Aurelius. These
factors translate into such social theories as the
survival of the
fittest, and the selfish interest motives of capitalism, and are social
realities reflected in processes of legitimization of power into
which we shall touch upon later. In the democratic process, for
operators get the money from the rich (notably through contributions to
candidate's party or campaign funds), use it to impress the people
media, get support through a give‑and‑take network of other
operators and potential cronies, and finally the votes of the
then project an image of wit and intelligence by employing
and devise their strategies and policies by picking the brains of the
intellectuals. In different systems it turns into the manipulation of
apparatus by operators and apparatchiks, producing
and presidents. Of course, what interests us more here is their will to
and their consciousness about the ways to get it rather than the
of their position.
relationship between the will to power and the ways for its attainment
crucial for the understanding of the entelechy of power. The saying:
"Where there is a will, there is a way" is true insofar as the two
propositions are connected, i.e., the
person who wills power knows the way and engages in it. The case which
illustrates our point is probably that of Nietzsche, the philosopher
of the "will to power". Conscious
and cognizant of his own will to
power, Nietzsche, who longed for audience and disciples, did not know
disdained, to engage in the processes and compromises which would
The will we
are referring to as a crucial source of power is will‑power rather than
will to power. It is neither a schopenhaueresque incessant impulse of
to live, nor Nietzsche's entire instinctive life. While it addresses
cravings, will‑power itself is not craving; it is determined and
capable to exert power. It is the characteristic which, conscious of
sources of power, turns them into power. In social terms, in the
case of Nietzsche, the potential power of his philosophy of the will to
was exploited by his sister. Through organization and exploitation of
sources of power – hers and her brother's position, connection,
reputation and knowledge ‑‑ Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche
the potential power of Nietzsche's philosophy into audiences and
which Nietzsche had so much longed for.
our review of the sources of power we have gradually moved from the
elemental to the more cognizant. As a simple illustration, one may say
water behind a dam is only force. Before the dam was built, the
of water was brute force rolling boulders down the mountain. After the
built, it becomes tamed force with potentials to generate electric
no power will be produced if the valves of the dam are not opened and
is not permitted to become active by
its movement. If there were no turbines and generators behind the
movement of water would simply turn into forceful streams. It is in its
contact with the turbines and generators
– which put up a relative resistance but rotate under the pressure of
stream – that the water becomes effective in
generating power. The power‑holders, however, are those
the incremental potential by holding
the water behind the dam and put it in contact with the generator and
the distribution of electricity. The power they control is the
which the high level of water holds behind the dam. Power
can thus be conceptualized as the conscious incremental potential
of an actor who is active, in contact and effective.
The consciousness of power may remain at
the stage of knowledge, i.e., as a potential source of power. In our
of marksman A, it would correspond to
a situation where A is aware that his marksmanship has
impressed B, but does not exploit it to establish
a power relationship. In our potentio‑kinetic conceptual framework, for
A's consciousness to become a positive
element of his kinetic power, the existing power relationship must have
brought about by A's intention and will.
course, A's will in its net form is
aimed at gA originally set as A's
goal. The product of the power relationship
may not, as we saw earlier coincide with A's
goal. The discrepancy between gA and p
may be due to factors beyond A's control. The more A is conscious, in the potential sense,
of the factors beyond its control which may affect his power
more he will adjust his will, in the kinetic sense, such that gA will be near to p. What is implicated
here is the subjectivity of both
consciousness and will and their relevance in the potentio‑kinetic
spectrum. The factors beyond A's
control include the consciousness and will of those upon whom A wills to exercise power. Those
consciousnesses and wills are in turn subjective variables with
degrees of flexibility. Beyond the circumstances and conjunctures which
controllable by powers involved, the product of their power
depend on the interplay of their capacities to analyze, evaluate and
appropriate conclusions for action – and their potentials to adapt to
absorb the consequences of one action in order to move on to subsequent
COEFFICIENTS OF POWER
of analysis and evaluation on the part of powers involved, discussed in
last chapter, may also bring about a product which may be more
the goal fixed by a given power. Suppose, for example, that in B's consciousness, A's intentions of
reprisal are exaggerated. Moved by what,
according to Brentano, "is the subject's relationship to a content, or
direction of an object (which need not be the reality)" B accomplishes
an act beyond A's expectations. The discrepancy between A's
intentions and B's “Vorstellung”  of them may be due to B's misperception
‑or knowledge ‑‑ about a degree of A's
capacities, of which A may not be
conscious. While the
product of the power relationship accrued to A
may have been greater than the goal fixed by A because
of the above discrepancy, the cause of the discrepancy
itself, i.e., A's additional
"capacity", cannot be considered as A's power
potential unless A
becomes conscious of it and takes advantage of it. The discrepancy as a
potential may go wasted until A or B or
a third party C becomes conscious of it and uses it as
a source power.
case may best be demonstrated by its extension ad absurdum
to the total non‑existence of A. If A exists only in B's frame
of mind ‑‑ a
proposition advanced by Nagel and picked up by Dahl
‑‑ can we objectively say that A
has power? In the imaginary world of B there
exists the phenomenon A which we
should take into account when we analyze B's behavior.
As A does not exist in
reality, we should see where the spoils of B's
behavior in relation to the imaginary A
end up. Nagel's example of the Japanese surrender because of the fear
atomic bombs does not accrue to nonexistent bombs but to the U.S.
beneficiaries of the Vorstellung of
the totem, god, goddess or Santa Claus
are the temple priests and other social relationships.
this is a strict empirical approach. As much as the follower of the
god or goddess may not be able to substantiate its existence, we
necessarily be able to prove its non‑existence. The fact, however, is
that existing or not, the thing or non‑thing has manifest power. Many
authors have pointed out the magic dimension of power. This non‑existential dimension as a
source of power entangles us with "power‑in‑itself". The
subjective psychological dispositions do not seem to provide all the
The voodoo death or
disorder may be explained as a psychosomatic reaction of the subject to
taboo. But the taboo does not cease after its
effect is produced. It is rather enhanced. The definitions given by
of mana and quoted by Durkheim can
bring some light to our discussion: "There
is a belief in a force altogether distinct from physical power, which
all ways for good and evil; and which it is of the greatest advantage
possess or control. This is Mana….. It
is a power or influence, not physical and in a way supernatural; but it
itself in physical force, or in any kind of power or excellence which a
possesses. This mana is not fixed in anything, and can be conveyed in
existential sense, skeptical but cognizant of this subliminal and
"power‑in‑itself" at the empirically "nonexistential"
state (a contradiction in terms), we may have to conceive of a
the sources and resources of power. The assumption being that the
whole may be
more than the sum of its parts. Thus, simple additions and
different sources of power may not give us a whole picture of power. A
can be found in nuclear physics. The weight of an atom is less than the
of the protons and neutrons comprising it. The weight discrepancy
compensated by a relatively enormous amount of energy within the atom. Where are we to look for the coefficient of
power? The Bergsonian elan vital did
not apply only to groups, armies, societies and what we know as living
Bergson compared the power of human mind to the potential energy
stored in an
coefficient of power in socio‑political terms turns into what we may
the "engrossment factor" ‑‑
feedback which engrosses power. Engrossment does to human relations
laser does to photons and a transistor does to electrons. Like photons
electrons it should be measurable. The problem is that it is lodged
humans; hard to measure. But just because it cannot be measured, we
discarded it. Discarding it would be like ceasing to observe, in
understand, the universe, because we cannot count the stars.
factor was the charge and the goose bumps which the intonation of Sieg Heil in the Nuremberg rallies
created in those who shouted it and the elation it produced in the Nazi
leaders on the podium who felt engrossed to go onto grosser deeds. Or,
the elements in the equation with the mollahs and the masses
"Down with America" in the Iran of 1980's. Surely, there is
acquiescence in the assembled masses in these examples which is the
attribute of the power holders.
After all, the German people voted the Nazis into the Reichstag through
elections, and the mollahs are legitimized by the power of Allah. But
also a charge which is different from that of a sedate assembly
listening to a
reasonable and calm politician. The charge goes beyond Le Bon's mental
the crowd and their collective mind. It is a controlled and organized charge for
the engrossment of power. The crowd, compared to a controlled and
mass, is what a flashlight is to a laser. Hitler was quite
conscious of those
properties. To turn the photons of the flashlight into the deadly rays
laser, to convert the individual Vorstellung potentials
into the engrossment factor, to transform the
energy of the
masses into a coherent tool for power, Hitler observed:
“The receptivity of
the great masses is very limited, their intelligence
is small, but their power of forgetting
is enormous. In
consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to
few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of
public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.”
coefficient of power is the boss's feeling of omnipotence after denying
promotion to a subordinate, not because of his lack of
because he was irreverent in his behavior towards the boss ‑‑ that
is, to the extent the boss senses his power in doing so and does not
remorse or doubt for his action. The coefficient of power is also what
relationship of the boss with another subordinate, whom he has
into respective feelings of magnanimity and loyalty.
Magnanimity and loyalty
are terms conveying power and its dynamics. They are power
attributes which transcend and, from within, corrode law and authority.
magnanimous leader, king or president, pardons the convict. A loyal
does not denounce his master who may have committed an unlawful act.
subordinate covers up the boss's mischiefs. Loyalty has the
primitive and anti‑social
in it. It has the elements of charisma, influence and persuasion on the
hand; and belonging, security, looking‑uptoism and fear on the
It is what holds the bands of pirates and the gangs of Los Angeles and
Decatur's ". . .our country, right or
wrong" had some of it. While nationality is a legal concept based
the norms of international law, nationalism is imbued with
nationality provides for rights and responsibilities, nationalism
pride and sacrifice and serves as the coefficient of the power of a
is what, beyond the need for security and greed, adventure and
curiosity, made Western
powers become great in the 19th and 20th centuries. It is the component
together with industry and balance of payments made Japan a power in
part of the 20th century. Collectively, the coefficient is esprit
de corps. The consciousness of power is not exactly that of
the rational man. One could say that if one has never felt power, one
be able to understand the proposition. But then, everybody has.
approaching the concept of power as an element of balance and
social situations, shows, in his chapter on the Family of Power, the
omnipresence of power as the dimension of any group ‑ whether a state
a band of pirates. If we
generalize the term "group"
to encompass not only human or animal groups, but any group which has a
cohesion, we may come close to the atomic illustration and conclude
cohesion of the group, be it an atom, a tree, a group or a
implies the existence of power. Without it no group structure or
movement can be
thus, power, being the prime mover, could be sought and maintained for
sake. Many schools of thought, from the legalist philosophers of China
political thinkers of modern Europe, have pleaded the case of power. Power‑in‑itself,
however, cannot exist in itself as an essence. It is power, as we saw
in so far as it is in contact, active and effective. Even the
taboo, mana or the totemic principle is to the extent of its
impact over its subjects. Power is not loose and total freedom. That
equate to total absence of power. Power is not freedom; it is by the
its freedom of action over its sphere
of power. A look at the spheres of power may help us examine further
conditions of power.
SPHERES OF POWER
To be active, in contact and effective,
power must mesh with the elements which it has or wants to have power
the process of entanglement to gain power, those who seek dominant
may confine their freedom. Power has been generally likened to a
because at every stage of the struggle for domination only some of
those at the
bottom will move up, and by the very nature of the situation dominate
remain in the lower strata. The repetition of the process results in a
pyramidal shape and by definition, a pyramid has a wide base and is
But the pyramid of power in not a static
geometric form. Its dynamics and fermentations require permanent
affirmation of the power which shapes it. Within it, there will be
contacts, interactions, transactions, and counteractions among
make it a whole. (Figure 6).
Power, if it is power, is ever evolving.
It is for the sake of simplicity of presentation that at this stage we
pictured it as a plain pyramid. Like all other socio‑political
power should not be visualized as a hard piece of concrete, but as a
which every particle is an interacting factor in the whole.
its dynamics and fermentations, a power complex, like a viscous
be able to go from extreme rigidity to the near weightlessness of
Within any relationship there is an optimum stage between rigidity and
weightlessness where power, depending on its texture, can function
best. At the
rigid extreme it may exercise brute force ‑‑ an effective
instrument under certain conditions ‑‑ while under other
circumstances it may diffuse and lighten its pressure over its
opponents so that its weight may scarcely be felt, and yet it may
The top of the pyramid sits best, of
course, when it distributes weight evenly over the base. In
this happens when power exercises equal control and/or care over
of its complex. Depending on its fluidity, it may have a greater or
freedom of action when it shifts its control and/or care within a
In position A1 in Figure 7, the top of
the pyramid is distanced from points B and C of the base and other points along the connecting lines
AI B and Al C as compared to
the A1 D line. A1 either controls
the A1D area
of the pyramid more or gives it
more attention and/or care. Yet it seems still to be in balance,
its overall situation, its relation to D compensates
its distance from B and C. In
position A2 the power holder seems to be in a more
precarious situation. It
is off‑balance and may fall. The shifting of control and emphasis by
summit of the pyramid is, of course, an involved process within the
strata of the complex.
The points of pressure and support may
not be identical and uniform from top to bottom. Each point of control
the complex may have a greater or lesser radius of oscillation,
its viscosity. There are, within the complex, "proximate policy
In a corporation, union, political party,
or Mafia, we could focus on a sector such as ABCDEF in
Figure 8 for closer scrutiny and examine its relationship
with other sectors and the whole. We may find that in its immediate
it has a better (or worse) reputation, or is (or is not) solidly
Recognizing and conditioning the domination drives of different
a power complex and accommodating within it the resistants ‑‑
which we will discuss in the next chapter ‑‑ are essential for the
control and exercise of superior and encompassing power. Evaluation of
of control possible, their loci and their nature will be crucial for
efficiency of a power complex. The conqueror king, in order to
rule a larger
territory, may have to divide the conquered land among his lieutenants;
professional association, in order to accommodate a large number
subdivides into specialized groups providing multiple turfs. The
may dilute the encompassing power but may also serve as its means for
control. Providing the components that have their own spheres of
prerogatives of inclusion and exclusion will develop illusory or real
which they would want to guard against each other, creating the need
encompassing power's arbitration. Divide and rule is a precept for
who exercise or are delegated to exercise power at different
sectors of the pyramid thus share, drain or enhance the power of the
Power has the possibility not only to
oscillate within a radius on a plane as in Figure 7, but also to
dilate, thus condensing or rarefying relationships among its components
Power may compress when it needs better
control of a situation or when the components require closer
order to give better cohesion to the whole. The compression may take
at the base and the power‑holder may, or may have to, relinquish
in order to keep the same angle of power within remaining components;
otherwise, a compression from the top, without reducing the expanse of
bottom, will flatten power-holder's controlling position. (Figure
Flattening implies reduction of power
components, such as a reverse process in a cumulative economy which, if
continued to the extreme, could revert to a subsistence level where
be few ingredients for building a substantial power pyramid. The model applies to a variety of instances
such as the retreat and regrouping of an army, the retrenchment of a
or reduction in the international commitments of a nation.
the other hand, a power may initiate dilation when a condensation
complex calls for easing of controls. It may also be a prelude to an
power strata preparing for further expansion. (Figure11).
But an elation without possibilities for
expansion at the base, distancing the upper strata of the power complex
the base, may reduce its stability. For example, in the complex French
of the 1960's, de Gaulle envisioned a superpower foreign policy which
his countrymen, more concerned with crucial domestic problems, did not
with him. His posture gave an impression of aloofness resulting in the
dissatisfaction and alienation of some of his popular base and
the 1968 events and the uprising of the students and workers' strikes.
Shifts, compressions or dilations of
power create different relationships and ratios within the power
upsetting the prevailing habits, frustrations and expectations, and
eventually changing its nature and course. A party leadership
shifting to an emphasis on workers' rights will eventually embrace more
ideologies of trade unionism and socialism than those of free
shift may take place because of a prior trade unionist penetration into
leadership of the party. (Figure 12)
Or it may be caused by policy‑makers
who, although not of trade unionist origin themselves, may have
favorable grounds among the workers. In the latter case, if the shift
the party's rank‑and‑file may gradually be penetrated by trade
unionist elements. (Figure 13).
In general terms, growing emphasis on the
role of certain sectors of the power complex may amount to the
passage of some
power potentials to those sectors ‑‑ a trend which may not be
reversible and which may eventually change the power relationship
even the nature of the power complex. A father who permits his son
to use the
family car, both to make the son more useful in doing family errands
give his son more liberties, will have less control over the car than
It will be difficult to revert to the earlier situation and prohibit
use of the family car without compensation or friction. Similarly, the
industrialist who, after having run his enterprise on the basis of his
individual will and decision‑making, agrees to take into consideration
the views of the workers, will have a hard time reverting to individual
But his recognition of workers' views, although changing the power
may create more interest and incentive in the workers, improve the
and in the long run give the industrialist possibilities of expansion.
nevertheless, changed the power relationship within the pyramid.
In dilation of a power complex, the sum
total of control is not always reduced but diffused and dispersed among
different strata and components of the power complex. The
liberalization of the
Catholic Church under John XXIII and Paul VI gave new vigor and
the faith, but at the same time made open dissent among the clergy
such matters as birth control and political activism.
Khrushchev's recognition of the
possibility of national roads to socialism in the 1950's loosened the
had been tightly placed by Stalin over Eastern Europe. It resulted in
in Hungary and later liberalizations in other Eastern European
Soviet Union had to use force both in Hungary and Czechoslovakia and
Brezhnev's "umbrella" over Eastern Europe to regain control. In this
case the controlled elements in a situation of dilation moved towards
disintegrating the very power structure itself.
In the process of liberalization, the
relationship of the Soviet Union with the socialist countries of
changed. Even after the formulation of the Brezhnev doctrine the
created by that first phase of de‑stalinization diffused some of the
Soviet power in Eastern Europe. In exchange, despite its military
interventions, Soviet Union gained some influence among the third world
countries. It may have been argued that the Soviet Union would have
greater influence in other parts of the world had it not used naked
against deviations in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
But timing and dosage of the use of power
and its dilation or compression are complex. Had the Soviet Union
in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the dispersion and diffusion of power
had consequences which would have changed beyond recognition the very
Soviet power. The changes could not have taken place solely in the
relationships and ratio of control within that power complex
factors beyond it which could have proven detrimental to its very
existence. The upheavals in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union since Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika underscore that
Variations in the visual presentations of
the pyramid could illustrate different political power complexes. The
structure of a less‑developed and unevenly distributed economy with an
autocratic regime could be presented with a wide base and a narrow
mass of people constituting the lower strata. So could be the power
of a police state with modern techniques of mass control: lethal
means, secret police information network and efficiently
media. (Figure 14).
The power may seem to sit on solid and
absolute bases. An analysis of the top of the pyramid may show,
the power‑holder's position is not necessarily soundly established;
is, if it is not buttressed by factors of legitimization of power into
authority. In examining political power in particular, as we shall
later, authority is intertwined with the power properties of the
should not be confused with it. The ruling strata may, for example,
its power legitimized by the religious beliefs of those submitting to
the pyramid of power of the Sultan of Brunei will be different
from what was
that of Noriega in Panama. In the complex represented in Figure 14,
ruled at the lower level are suppressed or subservient and may not be
challenge the power structure because of tight control or relative
of the base, the power struggle takes place within the upper strata in
of court intrigues, junta bargains and coups (the surface of support
where the plane cuts the pyramid at intersection B'C'D').
Such was, for example, the case of Duvalier in Haiti. The
proposition is, of course, valid as long as the base is deprived and
subservient. When the base, through factors such as economic
better education or communications and/or external factors,
politically aware and active, the power structure will undergo change,
strife, upheavals and revolution. Such were the cases of the rule of
Reza Shah in Iran, Batista in Cuba or Somosa in Nicaragua. The
covers many contemporary societies in Latin America and the Middle
East. It is
also applicable to many European post‑Reformation kingdoms, and the
Romanovs in Russia.
The power structure of more developed and
distributive economies will have fewer non‑participating members at the
base and the controls within it depend more on diffusion of power
law and authority structures. (Figure 15).
The rounder the edges of the pyramid, the
more integrated and diluted, the more consensual, the more law and
oriented and the less concentrated the power complex will be. Some
theories have conceived of rounding the edges of power to the point of
it into a sphere. Such theories assume that in a perfect power
participation the lack of a base and seat of power is compensated by
that power participation is so enlarged that no matter how the
the structure will hold together. In such a complex, whatever is
on top will assume
the responsibilities of the top, and the bottom will play the role of
anarchy in the "utopian" sense of Owen and Fourier, and younger
Marx's communism. The hypothesis is, of course, utopian. The communal
experiments that have survived are those such as the Hutterite
where power is intertwined with strong religious and communal controls
establishing strict hierarchies.
A more realistic pyramid for a developed
and reasonably distributive economy is a bellied pyramid as illustrated
Figure 15, where the middle class is substantial and the diffusion of
significant. Looking at the top of such a pyramid, we see that the
are not pointing sharply upwards as in the autocratic regimes. The
differentiation is smaller at the top where the power structure is
situated (section B'C'D' in Figure
15). But then what it has is more authority, and less power,
below. The President of the United States is not in great danger of
overthrown by a coup. But he mostly exercises legitimate power,
authority, and shares power with the Congress and the Supreme Court
more general terms, is influenced by all the other political
machinery of the
country, including state governments, parties and pressure groups.
implies, of course, as the figurative presentation can suggest, a
surface of support and consequently a greater surface of friction. In
words, in an economically more developed and politically more
complex with a diffusion of power, the power‑holders have less chance
whimsical action. The pyramid also shows the weight of the middle class
lower part of the pyramid and its magnitude as a whole. This
corresponds to the
formula of substantial middle class for stable political
advocated from Aristotle to our day.
Whatever the static illustration of the
pyramid, the power complex, in its dynamics, more closely resembles the
not the utopian sphere of law and harmony, but a more energetic and
one where the power‑holders seek the center rather than some peripheric
heights. Combining the different dimensions of power dynamics as
the last pages and superimposing Figures 7, 8, and 9, we find the power
appear as a sphere not unlike illustrations of atomic structures.
In that analogy, the identification of a
power complex will depend on what kind of an atom it resembles. Some
together better just as some power complexes do. There are
actinide atoms with more or less short spans of life which decay and
energy, and their interaction with their environment alters their
nature. There are atoms whose cohesion is such that
while they envelop an enormous amount of energy, they release that
when they are exposed to extremely high temperature (another form of
In terms of a human power complex all
depends on the cohesion of its components and how much of its energy it
expend to hold itself together and mobilize itself and how much of
it can generate as a power complex. The proposition reverts back to our
discussions, from the nature of the product to the coefficients of
different dynamics discussed in this chapter, a power complex may
its sphere in order to enhance the sensation or illusion of power
are referring to a gamut of situations from the exclusivity of clubs or
groups to development of jargons by professions, or economic
policies by a country.
The circumscription can be used as a
vehicle for internal dynamics and cohesion and to create an
identity for the
sphere making its penetration by the components of other power
difficult. Rules of the game, so to speak, develop. Different sources
evolve in particular ways and gain different weights creating specific
patterns. In some cultures title and pedigree (reputation) may become
weightier source of power, in another money (means), and in yet another
different combinations of networking and connections. In any of these
variations, of course, consciousness of power and the capacity to
analyze, evaluate and act will give the edge to the power seeker. But
prevalent and prescribed patterns of behavior can condition that
e., in different cultures consciousness and analytical qualities are
towards acquiring title, wealth or connections.
Circumscription of the sphere may make
the power complex itself less agile in penetrating other power
name of the game in the United States may not be the same as in France.
successful American power complex may not be able to operate as
within the French environment. All this again depends on the
adaptability of a
power complex, and the potentials it has bottled up within its sphere.
Commodore Perry dropped anchor in Edo Bay in 1853, Japan was a power
enclosed unto itself. The history of Japan since then provides a
illustration of the dynamics of the sources and spheres of power
RESISTANTS OF POWER
the social setting, when the dominant and the dominated components of a
complex are absolutely integrated in their relational circuit, the
that ensues should be taken into account as one power entity. It is
healthy body in which the kidney and the nose have coordinated
the whole and do not exercise power over each other. To become a
power, that body, as a potentio‑kinetic entity, should come into
with its environment, i.e., spheres of other powers. In a vacuum, in
dynamics of power, it is as good as nonexistent. As we saw
earlier, power is a
relationship. It involves the domineering and the submitting or
in the personal power relationship between parents and the child, what
outside that particular complex creates other power relations. Beyond
limitations and permissions of the parent‑child relationship, the child
fits into other environmental situations. His relationships with
children or his imaginary domination over his toys or his pet
him attitudes often influencing his behavior in the parent‑child
very unknown and undominated surroundings of an isolated ruler and his
are factors which may influence and limit his power complex and the
his subjects who, in one way or another, make use of the surroundings.
these are extreme examples. In the societal context power
complexes operate in
promiscuity. They often overlap and interpenetrate each other and in
spherical dynamics come into conflict, cohabitation or
cooperation. Vacuums do
not remain vacuums. When the United Kingdom, in order to compress its
control after the components of its power had thinned out,
withdrawal from the east of the Suez Canal, the expanding U.S.,
other local powers prepared to take over. One of the consequences was
emergence of Iran as a regional power with its own internal
which eventually gave rise to Islamic fundamentalism energizing, in
power complexes. There exists thus a spectrum of endogenous and
dynamics for power complexes in time and space.
the struggle for domination and power, the hierarchy of the components
power complex does not organize itself without clashes, gropings,
encounters, perseverances, and challenges.
may cause the contenders to keep aloof from each other, in which case
it may be
said that no power relationship is established between those particular
power that can be generated will depend on the combination of the
factors and the extent and shape in which they fuse and amalgamate.
will, at once, be the centripetal gravitation for active contact
engagement, and centrifugal tendency for freedom, escape and possible
attraction to other contenders.
we proceed in this discussion of the relational nature of power, the
implication seems to be that power cannot be conceived alone. In
relativity it needs at least two components: power and its antimony. In
the consciousness of power will tend to call for the consciousness of
elements over which it has power. What is the power which is not
the manner of Caligula, power may push its docile subjects to the
revolt in order to feel their resistance and thus feel itself.
then, is conditional to resistance to such an extent that it
conceived without it: .
It follows that there will be degrees of externality and
internality of resistance in relation to power such that in the absence
relatively external challenge, the substantiation of power
within. Indeed, intrinsic resistants do not ferment only when the
foreign challenge has ceased. Their germs are ever present within the
complex so that in the potentio‑kinetic sense power does not cease to
exist. This existential relational nature of power implies that
part and parcel of power .
Lord Acton's "Power
corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, " was not only a
moral maxim but a precept for good government, empirically
which led him to emphasize the need for an opposition even within
power. This Janus characteristic of power evokes
the dyad of man's existence with which we started our study. The drive
domination emanates from man's dilemma: to be or not to be. It seems,
through man's vision and understanding of the phenomena, that this is
confined to man but is the law of nature. In physics, at the
when energy turns into matter, it does so in pairs: an atomic particle
(electron) and the symmetric antiparticle (positron). At the other end
scale we now seem to discover that our universe and its constellations
contained in their infinity by the dyad of matter and anti‑matter. Spin
the two arrows in our Figure 19 and what you get will not be far from a
Nebula in the
Wilson and Palomar Observatories.
gazing into the skies and fearing and searching the unknown beyond his
which gives him light and darkness, heat and cold, and life and death,
perceived power in the elements and conceived it in human terms.
magnanimous and mean streaks of the Greek and Aztec gods, the
and Ahriman, Nirvana (being and nothingness, affirmation and negation),
Ying and Yang in Eastern religions, God and Satan in the
religions are all manifestations of the dyadic nature of power.
dyadic conception of the supernatural power does not only arise from
perception but also from his consciousness about the coefficients of
its intrinsic resistants. By injecting them into his idea of the
holy he can
at once expect (and indeed demand) the supernatural to accomplish
because of the coefficients ‑‑ and negotiate with it ‑‑
because of the intrinsic resistants: as supernatural powers settle
accounts within, man can take sides and bargain and explain his
with certain wishes of the gods.
observation leads us to a fact of much greater significance for
It is that not all men gazing into the sky or in awe of the mystery of
come up with an explanation. Those who do have an edge on the others.
the power of the totem accrues to the shaman. What is pertinent to our
that those who claim knowledge of the mysteries of heaven use the power
supernatural to legitimize their own power ‑‑ and that of others
(the divine right of kings) ‑‑ into authority. We thus reach the
point of power/authority conversion. While, as we have seen, power
confined to its human perception, authority is manmade. Making the
between the two is crucial for our understanding of social
political organizations. We take the liberty of a short incursion into
conversion of power into authority to underscore this point.
FROM POWER TO LAW AND AUTHORITY
Man's central dilemma in the
potentio‑kinetic context of power
fact that whether in a situation of clash between contesting
powers or in that
of dominant and dominated elements, the subservient constantly
pressure of the power-holders and the latter need to incessantly
their power in order to affirm it.
We don't know about the existence of
consciousness in supernovas, collapsars, electrons and positrons but,
time and space, human consciousness soon realizes the lack of security
two dimensional nature of power both for those who submit to power and
who exercise it.
continuum leads to the observation of recurrences and the
experience: In the long run, the contested powers harden, become
erode, and are overtaken by others. Looking into the past, present
seek ways of securing their own power, and also, creating conditions
submission, if and when it befalls them, more bearable. The more
power shifts, the greater the likelihood of powers' consciousness
of the need
The spatial factor is the coexistential
reality of power: the inevitable
coexistence of clashing powers and
the unavoidable friction between the superior and the subordinate. The
reality, in the context of the temporal continuum, soon leads to the
realization of the need for accommodation. The powers that
bonds, bounds and servitudes for themselves. In other words, part of
power is transformed into an authority which sets standards upon them
sake of order, stability and predictability. The proposition
responsibility and accountability. Power does not have to justify its
more on justification later. Authority is answerable and has to respond
someone or some institution which may not necessarily be the
and/or it may have to behave in some prescribed way. So, in
addition to the
two dimensions of command and compliance (or clash), arises a third
of interaction calling for responsibility.
As we noted at the beginning of this
inquiry, it is at the international level, at the point of encounter of
autonomous and alien entities, that the distinction between power and
can best be demonstrated. International law has authority to the extent
those submitting to it recognize it: pacta
sunt servanda. In the absence of a coercive power above the will
sovereign states, the confronting powers recognize an area of
where they create an authority binding them. They do so to the extent
perceive the temporal/coexistential phenomena. (Figure 22)
The autonomy and distinctiveness of
states account, to a large extent, for the rather precarious nature of
international law. Because the powers that be do not identify with
series of rise and fall of powers to conclude that in the long run
part of their power to a normative system could contribute to the
their relations with each other and the security for the exercise
portion of their power they have retained. Indeed, where
increases and spatial distances are reduced due to development of
communications, and where past experiences are identified with by those
involved, the chances for the conversion of the power of the states
authority become greater, as has been the case with the European
such instances have been rare in the history of international relations.
In closely‑knit small human
communities, the temporal and coexistential phenomena ‑‑
accumulation of experiences and observation of recurrences within
collectivity ‑‑ are close at hand. Recall our earlier discussion of
domination drive. As the individual drives for domination, he also
very close at hand ‑‑ the growth, potency and decay of other
individuals: his parents, himself and his offsprings. Thus, into the
the clan and the community soon seep norms of conduct: honor thy
thy mother; love and respect. As Hegel put it, the immediacy of a
potential freedom are mediated through education into ethical
NATURAL, RATIONAL AND NORMAL BEHAVIOR
To provide continuity, stability and
predictability within a community, norms of conduct create bonds and
on the natural inclinations and self‑centered rationales of the
individual. The natural inclination of a person in heat may be to rape
person. The rational selfish behavior of a hungry man would be to grab
of a weaker person. The natural inclinations can lead to brute force;
rational calculations, free from norms, can result in unscrupulous use
power. Norms restrain and constrain raw exercises of power. They
develop as the
natural and rational potentials of man are conditioned by the
temporal/coexistential realities. In the last analysis norms have some
and rational bases. The logic of "thou shall not kill" is that you
don't kill and others don't kill you.
But temporal and coexistential phenomena
may obscure the original natural and rational bases and substitute them
sources of the norms. A person will behave in a given way because it is
normal because others have behaved and are behaving that way. In some
the natural and rational bases may no longer apply but the traditional
(temporal) and collective (coexistential) realities maintain the norms
mores. Eating pork may have been proscribed in Judaism because of the
observation that it could cause trichinosis. Modern hygiene has removed
cause but not the practice.
A normative system of right and wrong,
good and bad, allowed and forbidden thus emerges which finds its
in the collective stability and the predictability it provides. One begins to do or not do as others have
done and do, or have not done and do not do. The justification for the
precepts are the temporal and collective phenomena. Here we have the
elements for 1) law :
the binding nature of norms; 2) justice : the
justification of the norms, and; 3) tradition : the
confluence of the temporal and collective
phenomena. The proposition covers the evolution, over time, of
clashes and cooperations among members of families and clans into mores
morality within homogeneous communal settings.
The spectrum of conversion of power into
law and authority thus extends from the development of moral norms
community at one end to the development of international law among
the other end. Between the two, in different social structures,
of power into authority takes a few more twists in the relationship
dominant and the dominated in order to make it possible for some within
society to take certain liberties that others cannot take.
To enjoy their power with stability and
with little use of coercion, powerholders should justify their
position and the discrepancy between what they can do and others
all, that justification should be accepted by those they dominate and those who may contest their power. In
a nutshell, to take liberties, power uses coercion while authority uses
justification. Nutshells, of course, deform and banalize. The
power into authority is the feat of human social organization: turning
into law to legitimize power into authority in order to exercise power
legitimately. (Figure 23).
As the loops in Figure 23 show, it takes
power to create authority. Between the two dominant and dominated
the power complex, legitimization arises as a third dimension
binding the two
together. It permits the transformation of the lieutenants of the
into the sheriffs of the kingdom.
For this conversion, what power has to
work with and against are its inherent coefficients and resistants. It
balancing and compromising of the two that produces the legitimizing
The stronger the coefficients, the more overwhelmed the resistants and
arbitrary the laws. Cases in point are periods of rule by charismatic
and certain periods in revolutions; the coefficient being popular
terror or popular hysteria. In such cases the legitimizing
dimension can be
rather thin and when the coefficient subsides the authority system has
the test of time.
Of course, in historical terms, the move
from the exercise of power to its legitimization into authority is
constant progression. Where authority is challenged by new powers or
slips beyond the value system which legitimizes it, the need for new
of conversion arises. Thus, for example, as a reaction to the tyrants
century B.C. the ideas of democracy, rule of law and constitutional
were developed by Greek statesmen and philosophers like Pericles,
Plato and Aristotle. And the Reformation, the religious wars and the
absolute monarchies in Europe gave rise to significant religious,
and literary debates on the legitimacy of power.
The processes and methods of legitimizing
power into authority are easier to identify when the coefficients and
are mediated and compromised by the domineering and the dominated
common value system, such as the rule of a Christian monarch over a
population, both believing in the divine right of kings. We have
elsewhere the two main legitimizing processes as consecration
and constitutionalization. In
consecration the legitimizing dimension is derived from beyond the
complex itself, either the supernatural
– such as the divine right of kings ‑‑
or the traditional – rooted in
times past. In
constitutionalization legitimization is mediated within the power
its venues are contractual – drawing
on theories of social
contract – and representational – based
on concepts of voting, elections
and majority rule. We need not elaborate on these processes here and
reader to the earlier writing. What is of interest
to our present
study of the conversion of power into authority is that each process of
legitimization runs within a spectrum, at one end closer to power, at
other, to authority.
It is not so much the adherence of the
powerful to the process which determines where within the spectrum a
should be placed, but how effective is the value system on which it is
The Christian king may not only believe in the divine right of kings
also be a very pious Christian. The president of the republic may be
elected. But both the king's and the president's authority will depend
coherently the whole polity upholds the value system on which their
is based. Ion Iliescu received 85 % of the votes for the presidency of
in 1990, yet he had to call on coercive elements to claim his
François Mitterrand, who was elected with 53 % of the votes to
of France in 1988, has had little crisis of authority. At issue is the
justification of the third dimension – the legitimizing dimension ‑‑
and whether the dominated believe it is imbued with justice.
To make the point, let us take, for
example, the traditional process of conversion of power into
legitimization is based on the temporal/coexistential phenomena.
We noted earlier
that it served effectively to develop moral norms within homogeneous
communities. When applied in a differentiated heterogeneous society,
process reveals Austinian characteristics. That is, as John Austin put
authority system is effective when "the
bulk of the given society are in a habit of obedience or
submission to a determinate
and common superior.” The
"bulk," the "habit"
and the "determinate and common superior" imply the traditional
continuum. Yet, the proposition can work where the differentiation
liberties of the superiors and the norms imposed on their subjects is
glaring. Without any other justification than
"because others have done it that way", great discrepancies can
become questionable. Failing justification, the "authority" will have
to resort to coercion. Indeed, Austin's description of positive law is
the habit of obedience and the fear of punishment.
In this traditional model we are
presented with a spectrum with, at one end a communal setting with
differentiation and its norms justified by their resilience and,
at the other
end, an authority with differentiated norms and great propensity to be
The spectrum of coercion/justification
evokes the utilitarian and behaviorist concepts of pain and pleasure,
punishment and reward; yet it should not be confused with them.
off, in part, from our earlier discussion of persuasion as a
power. There is an element of persuasion in the conversion of
authority. Part of power's persuasive coefficient is used for
compromising the power in a value system binding upon it as well. The
system will, of course, present a hierarchy in the norms of conduct in
the powerful. The more those subject to the power believe in the
and justice of the value system, both legal and social, the more
becomes as a legitimizing factor, justifying the discrepancies. When
accused, as a Sudra, believes that he deserves the punishment of the
purifies him for his next reincarnation and his peers think so too, we
system of authority whose laws are found to be just by those who submit
to it. Here we are, of course, dealing with
valuational content of justice. The example of the Sudra should not
the totalitarian justification of power should necessarily rest on
superstitious grounds. In the Moscow trials of the 1930's many of those
of treason by Stalin confessed to their crimes against communism,
devoted communists ‑‑ and because of it. According to some
accounts, which are now being substantiated, they did so because
they were convinced that their confession would maintain the legality
Within a differentiated heterogeneous
society where different value systems cohabit and compete to serve
for righteousness, those who do not find certain laws just in the
sense may submit to the broad authority system to preserve the civil
The concept of nolo contendere, besides
its common interpretation of non‑admission of guilt, implies that the
accused does not contest the facts of the case and submits to the
verdict but considers that his action should not have been
illegal. He may do
so because he may believe that, despite the injustice of the
due process has been applied and it is in his ‑‑ and the common –
interest to have the legal institutions respected. While his interest
the legal institutions respected may imply his belonging to the
of the society – the domineering elements – his consideration of the
process evokes the principle of fairness in our equation of
The fairness characteristics of justice
are present within our spectrum of coercive power and just authority.
points within the spectrum, in a differentiated heterogeneous power
when value systems are at odds, due process and strict observance
of the law
may become the minimal fabric of social cohesion. As Barry puts it "the more a society is divided on
substantive values, the more precious as a means of preserving social
any agreement that can be reached on the procedure.”
On our spectrum, Barry's proposition
approaches the adherence of sovereign states to international law. Even
international level there are gradations within the
spectrum. States carve out of their sphere of power certain areas of
authority corresponding to different degrees of justification or
development of Western international law, for example, was steeped
evolution of the rights of Christian sovereigns. Where a common value
more or less applicable, it is evoked to buttress agreements. In the
common values, the coercive phenomenon becomes more operative and
to their pacts as long as there is balance of power. Hence the
existence of the
debatable clausula rebus sic stantibus in
international law. Balance includes the perception of the parties about
capacity to inflict harm. The retribution may not be outright act of
hostage‑taking by the proxies of one power which may not have the
material capacities of the other one but has a value system which puts
emphasis on human life. Such have been, for example, the cases of
in the Middle East.
The principle of fairness as formulated
by Rawls implies a consciousness on the part of the members of the
about their social rights and duties.” It fits into the constitutionalization
process for the conversion of power into authority. But in so far as
masses are not consciously engaged in cooperative ventures
according to agreed
upon rules limiting their liberties for the common good, due process
obfuscate questions relating to the justification of laws and
the concepts of equity and social justice and debates in legal
"rights" in the legal sense and "what is Right" in the
moral sense. Our concern here is not a debate on what is and what ought
but their perception by different segments within a power complex.
When the tenant who cannot pay the rent
willingly leaves the house because he feels that as a retired person
needs the income, the tenant finds the owner's right Right. When more
renters refuse to leave and find the owners to be exploitive
owner's right is less and less Right to the extent the society
with the tenants. The more landlords have to call on the police and the
to evict renters, the more authority is used for contested power. The
of the peace may be exercising his authority and reach his verdict with
process, but there will be little justice in his verdict in the eyes of
convicts and their sympathizers.
Note, however, that the assumption here
is that the legal system supports the established order as the
of the society. The identification of the weightier part of the society
legal system will, of course, depend on the value systems present.
legal system is directly an issue of the legitimized power and
answerable to it
alone, it becomes part and parcel of it. Such are, for example, cases
theocratic and totalitarian regimes. Under such regimes, the perception
justice is closely related to the justification of the privileges
weightier part of the society by the prevailing value system. In 1990,
squatters in Moscow occupied apartments which were built for the
party officials who could once justify their own special treatment by
burden they had assumed to lead the proletariat to the classless utopia.
But where the legal system is relatively
independent of the coercive structures, it may become sensitive to
shifts within the society. Such has been, for example, the evolution of
common law. There is also the case of religious systems dispensing
belief serving as the legitimizing dimension of monarchies, and in
monarchs upholding and propagating the spiritual authority of the
system; the two serving as checks and balances to each other.
The dependence of different powers on
each other for the legitimization process is indeed the measure of
justification of authority. One of the causes of the Reformation
was that more
and more Christians – including Christian princes – found the
church's expanding land ownership not Right. Yet, at some point in the
of the Church of Rome, the coefficient of religion had been so
the terror of God so great ‑‑ that it justified the donation of
land to insure God's ultimate "justice".
There will be the powerful who will have
the law on their side and may find it just as it is. In the
social context chances are that there will always be some who contest
justice of certain laws. Depending on their importance, they may cause
disruption or they may remain marginal to the power/authority
which may otherwise have a broad base of justification. Within the
going from coercion to justification, the legitimate power,
authority and the
legal system can thus be located at different points. At one
extreme, laws can
become the coercive tools of power with an appearance of authority, at
other extreme, in a homogeneous community or a monolithic belief
can be immersed in moral codes binding the whole together, with
behavior inside each member and little apparent outside coercive
body – as in
the case of Hutterite communes mentioned earlier.
It would not be only a jeu de mots to
say that, at least in the
Western civilization, the words law and justice carry in their origins
concepts developed here. Lex, the
Latin origin of the word law is derived from legere which
means binding together. Justice is derived from jus
which also means juice and broth.
For those who began conceiving these social phenomena, law constituted
ligaments binding the members of the society together while justice
those ligaments. The more there is justification, justice and juice
body politic, the society and the organism, the less dry and squeaky
the ligaments and the laws.
our incursion into the conversion of power into authority we have
into the domain of legal philosophy. Continuing our research in that
can deviate our attention from the premises we have already established
distinction between power and authority. Indeed, one of the
identifying social power is its propensity to flow into other
whether law, economy or religion, and to confuse with them. Yet, it is
important to distinguish between power and authority, because
seeks security for its power through legitimization into
has an endemic tendency towards power. It is that the dulled
tamed resistants cease to be stimulants. While authority addresses
for security, order and predictability, power tantalizes his cravings
challenge, game and adventure.
began this inquiry by an attempt to formulate power relationships. But
reflections on power continued, more variables emerged. Such were
relationships between the product and the goal, the comparative
different sources of power, the solidity or precariousness of a power
depending on the shifts in its sphere of power, the coefficients and
of power and their use in creating the legitimizing dimension for the
of power into authority, the temporal and coexistential phenomena which
condition power and develop norms which, in turn, are used both for the
and the exercise of power, the interrelated spectra of
and law/justice and their role in distinguishing between power and
the measurement of these variables we would need multidimensional
complex quantification and computation facilities which, as yet,
available. The essential fact to retain, however, is that while
which is measurable in the study of power, one should not lose sight of
aspects of power which are not within quantitative grasp. The reduction
phenomenon to its measurable properties can distort the perception and
understanding of the phenomenon. As we measure, we should keep the
in mind; it can have an effect on our measurements.
course, no awe of the unmeasurable aspects of power is implied. The
and the philosopher should remain aloof and simply be conscious of them
order to have a better perspective for analysis. The awe of power
is for the
philosophically uninitiated; both those who submit to it and those who
it. The case of the latter is the more ominous and worthy of close
It is when the powerful, whether prophets, visionary leaders or
mistake the coefficients of their power for a mystic mission that
prone to catastrophes. That is a significant manifestation of man's Vorstellung of power in heavens beyond.
“I go the way that Providence dictates,
with the assurance of a sleepwalker”, said Hitler.
no, Theodore W., Else Fenkel‑Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt
Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality, New York, Harper, 1950.
Hayward, Karl W.Deutsch, and Antoine Stoetzel, (eds), Mathematical
Approaches To Politics, San Francisco, Jossey‑Bass, 1973.
Hannah, The Origins Of Totalitarianism, New York, Harcourt
, On Revolution, New York, Viking Press, 1963.
, On Violence, New York, Harcourt, Brace & World, 1970.
Aristotle, The Works Of Aristotle,
Edited by W.D. Ross, Oxford,
, The Complete Works Of Aristotle, edited by Jonathan Barnes,
N.J., Princeton University Press, 1984.
Aron, Raymond, "Macht, Power,
démocratique ou poésie démoniaque?", in Archives
Sociologie, V, 1 (1964), pp.27‑51.
, Power, Modernity, And Sociology, Selected Sociological Writings,
Brookfield, Vt., Gower, 1988.
Maurice, "An Analysis of Power, with Special References to
Politics," World Politics, 3, 1951, pp. 218‑237.
John, (1832), The Province Of Jurisprudence Determined. New
Peter, and Morton S. Baratz, "Two
Faces of Power," in American Political Science Review, 56,
‑‑ , "Decisions and non‑decision," in American
Political Science Review, 57, 1963, pp. 632‑642.
‑‑ , Power And Poverty, New York, Oxford University Press,
Francis, Meditationes Sacrae, 1597, numerous editions.
Ernest, Nietzsche And Treitschke: The Worship Of Power In Modern
London, Oxford University Press, 1914.
David A., "Money and Power," in Journal Of Politics, 33, 1971,
, "Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends versus Old
Tendencies", in World Politics, 31, 2, 1979.
Edward C., Political Influence, New York, Free Press, 1961.
Brian, Political Argument, London, Routledge & Kegan, 1965.
, (ed.), Power And Political Theory: Some European Perspectives,
Daniel, "Is there a Ruling Class in America?" in Bell, (ed.), The
End Of Ideology, New York, Collier, 1962, paperback, rev. ed. pp.
David V. J., Power, Influence And Authority: An Essay In Political
Linguistics, New York, Oxford University Press, 1975.
Reinhard, "The Mandate to Rule: An Introduction" in Social Forces,
55, 1976), pp. 242‑255.
Bergson, Henri, L’Evolution
‑‑ , Les Deux Sources de la
Morale et de
la Réligion, Paris, Alcan, 1932.
G. A., "The Meaning of 'Energia' and 'Entelechia' in Aristotle", in International
Philosophical Quarterly, 7, 1967, pp. 110‑117.
Peter, Exchange and Power in Social Life, New York, John Wiley,
, Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social
New York, The Free Press, 1977.
Nirmal Kumar, Selections From Gandhi, Ahmedabad, Navajivan
Bossuet, Jacques, La Politique
Tirée de L'Ecriture
Sainte, (1679), Paris, Gallimard, 1979
Alan, "A Critique of Steven Lukes' 'Power: A Radical View'", Sociology,
10, 1976, pp. 121‑128.
Brentano, Franz Clemens, Psychologie
Standpunkt, 1874, 1911, Leipzig, Meiner, 1924 (Vol. I.) 1925 (Vol. II).
Stephen Junius" (pseudonym), Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, (1579),
see infra. J.H. Franklin.
Tom R., and Walter Buckley, Power and Control: Social Structures
Transformation, London, Sage, 1976.
Jean, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (1536), Grand
W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1986.
Elias, Crowds and Power (1910), London, Gollancz, 1962.
W. B., "Voodoo Death," American Anthropology, 44, 1942, p.
Dorwin, "A Field Theoretical Concept of Power," in D. Cartwright,
(ed.), Studies in Social Power, Ann Arbor, University of
1959, pp. 183‑220.
, "Influence, Leadership, Control," in J. March (ed.) Handbook of
Organizations, Chicago, Rand McNaly, 1965, pp. 1‑17.
Centre Aixois de Recherches
Anglaises, Le Pouvoir dans
la Litterature et la Pensée Anglaises, Aix,
Université de Provence, 1981.
Dorothy, and Robert Seyfarth, How Monkeys See The World: Inside the
Another Species, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1990.
Winston S., The Second World War, 6 Vols., Boston, Houghton
Kenneth B., Pathos of Power, New York, Harper & Row, 1974.
Fredric E., "Social Origins and Processes Among Plants," in C .A.
Murchison (ed.) A Handbook of Social Psychology, (1935), New
Russell & Russell, 1967.
Ray S., World Power Assessment: A Calculus of Strategic Drift,
Colorado, Westview, 1975.
James S., Power and the Structure of the Society, New York, W.
Connolly, William E., The Terms of
Lexington, Mass., Heath, 1974.
Coser, Lewis, "The Notion of Power:
Developments", in L. Coser and Bernard Rosenberg (eds), Sociological
Theory: A Book of Readings, New York, Macmillan, 1976, 4th
edition, pp. 150-161
C. Jackson, Our Atomic World, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, U.S. Atomic
Robert A. "The Concept of Power," in Behavioral Science, 2,
1957, pp. 201‑215.
, Who Governs?, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1961.
, Modern Political Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall,
, Pluralist Democracy in the United States: Conflict and Consent,
Chicago, Rand McNally & Company, 1967.
, "Power," in International Encyclopedia of The Social Sciences,
New York, Macmillan and Free Press, 1968. Vol. 12, 405‑415.
Geoffrey, The Analysis of Power: A Realist Approach, London,
Jacques, (1967), Writing and Difference, Chicago, University of
, Of Grammatology, (1967), Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University
Rene, The Principles of Philosophy (1644). Numerous editions.
Karl, The Nerves of Government. New York, Free Press, 1966.
Leonard W., Personality, Power, and Authority: A View from the
Sciences, Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1983.
Sanford M., Evaluation and The Exercise of Authority, San
Emile, The Division of Labor in Society, (first published in
1893), New York, Macmillan, 1933.
, The Elementary Forms of the
Religious Life, (first published in French in 1912), Glencoe, Ill.
A. E., "The Biological Basis of Social Cooperation," in Illinois
Academy of Science Transactions, 39, 1946.
Richard M., "Power‑Dependence Relations", American
Sociological Review, 27 (February 1962), pp.31‑41.
Alexander Passerin d', The Notion of the State, An Introduction to
Fenelon François, Les
Aventures de Télémaque,
(1699), numerous editions.
Raymond D., and Richard N. Adams, The Anthropology of Power:
Studies from Asia, Oceania and the New World, New York, Academic
Julian H., Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth
Treatises by Hotman, Beza, and Mornay, New York, Pegasus, 1969.
Frederick W., "Comment: On Issues and Nonissues in the Study of
Power", American Political Science Review, 65, 1971,
J.R.P., Jr., "A Formal Theory of Social Power," in Psychological
Review, Vol. 63, 1956, pp. 181‑194.
, and B. Raven, "The Basis of Social Power," in D. Cartwright (ed.) Studies
In Social Power. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1959, pp.
Carl J., "Authority, Reason and Discretion", in Friedrich (ed.), Authority,
Cambridge, Mass., Harvards University Press, 1958.
Eric, Escape From Freedom, New York, Farrar and Rinehart, 1941.
John Kenneth, The Anatomy of Power, Boston, Houghton &
William A., "Reputation and Resources in Community Politics," American
Journal of Sociology, 72, 1966, pp. 121‑131.
, William A., Power and Discontent. Homewood, Ill., Dorsey
Gaudemet, J., "Esquisse d'une
du Pouvoir" in Politique, July/ December 1962.
Gaulle, Charles de, Memoires
d'Espoir: Le Renouveau
1958 ‑ 1962, Paris, Pion, 1970.
Gilpin, Robert, U.S. Power and the
Corporations, New York, Basic Books, 1975.
-- , The Political Economy of
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1987.
Herbert, and Edward A. Shils, "Types of Power and Status," American
Journal of Sociology, 45, 1939, pp. 171‑182.
Alvin I., "Towards a Theory of Social Power", in Philosophical
Studies, 23, 4, 1972, pp. 221‑68.
John N., "On the Contestability of Social and Political Concepts", in Political
Theory, 5, 1977, pp. 331‑348.
, Rationality and Relativism in Recent Work in the Theory of Power,
Papers in Politics No. 17, Hull, University of Hull, 1980.
Donald R., Animal Thinking, Cambridge, Harvard University
Grotius, Hugo, De Jure Belli Ac
Washington, Carnegie Institution, 1913.
Gumplowicz, Ludwik, Grundriss
1885. tr. Outlines of
Sociology (ed.) Irving L.
Horowitz, New York, Paine‑Whitman,
Tzu, The Complete Works of Han Fei Tzu (3rd Century B.C.)
traslation by W.K. Liao, 2 Vol., London, Arthur Probsthain, 1959.
H. F. and R. R.Zimmermann, "Affectional Responses in Infant Monkeys,"
in Science, Vol. 130, 1959, pp. 421‑436.
James, The Commonwealth of Oceana, (1656), numerous editions.
, The Political Works of James Harrington, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 1977.
John C., (a) "Measurement of Social Power, Opportunity Costs and the
Theory of Two Person Bargaining Games," in Behavioral Science,
7, 1962, pp. 67‑80.
, (b) "Measurement of Social Power in n‑Person Reciprocal Power
Situations," in Behavioral Science, 7, 1962, pp. 81‑91.
Amos H., Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Structure. New
Ronald Press, 1950.
G. W. F., Philosophy of Right (1821), English translation by
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1967.
I. "The Discussion of the Instinct to Master," in Psychoanal
Quarterly, 12, 1943, pp. 561‑565.
Hennen, Manfred, Autorität
Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1977.
Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf,
Mifflin, 1943, 1971.
Thomas, Elements of Law, Natural and Politique, 1640, Numerous
, De Cive, 1647, Numerous editions.
, Leviathan, 1651, Numerous editions.
Hofstatter, Peter Robert, Gruppendynamik:
Massenpsychologie, Hamburg, Rowohlt, 1957.
Sidney, The Hero in History: A Study in Limitation and Possibility,
York, The Humanities Press, 1943.
Husserl, Edmund, Formale und
Versuch Einer Kritik der Logischen Vernunft, Halle
a.S., Max Nijmeyer, 1929.
, Ideas, General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, (1913),
R. Boyce Gibson, London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1931.
, The Idea of Phemonenology, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1964.
, Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology,(1931),
Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, 1960.
Arnold A., The Drive for Power, New York, M. Evans, 1974.
Institut International de
Philosophie du Droit, Le
Pouvoir, 2 Vols., Paris, 1956‑57.
Jeffrey C., Power and Marxist Theory: A Realist View, Ithaca,
University Press, 1987.
Kent, Community Influentials, New York, The Free Press, 1964.
Jouvenel, Bertrand de, Du
Pouvoir, Histoire Naturelle
de sa Croissance, Geneva, Les Editions du Cheval Aile, 1945.
G. K., J. W. Milnor, , J. F. Nash, and E. D. Nering, "Some Experimental
games," in R. M. Thrall, C. H.Coombs, and R. L. Davis (eds.), Decision
Processes, New York, Wiley, 1954.
Georg, "Some Aspects of Power in Small Groups," in Joan H. Criswell,
Herbert Solomon, and Patrick Suppes (eds.), Mathematical Methods In
Group Processes, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1962, pp.
Emmanuel, Metaphysics of Morals (1797), in Kant's Critique
Practical Reason and other Works, tr. T. K. Abbott, London,
Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence: World
Transition, Boston, Little Brown, 1977.
A., "The Concept of Values: A Socio‑Phenomenological Approach",
in The Journal of Value Inquiry, VIII (1974).
, "Decision‑making Within a Communal Setting: A case Study on
Hutterite Colonies", in International Review of Modern Sociology,
VI (Spring 1976).
, The Socio‑Political Complex: An Interdisciplinary Approach to
Political Life, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1979.
Klaus, The Power of Nations: The Political Economy of International
Relations, New York, Basic Books, 1975.
Arthur, Darkness at Noon, (1940), London, The Folio Society,
Michael, Power: How to Get It, How to Use It, New York, Random
La Bruyere, Jean de, Les
Caractères, ou les Moeurs de
ce Siècle, (1688‑1696). Translated
as Characters, Baltimore, Md., Penguin Books, 1970.
Robert E. "The Fear of Equality," in The American Political
Science Review, 53, 1959, pp. 35‑51.
Lapierre, J. W., Le Pouvoir
Presses Universitaires de France, 1953.
Mogens Trolle (ed.), Power and Propaganda: A Symposium On Ancient
Copenhagen, Akademisk Forlag, 1979.
Harold D., Politics: Who Gets What, When, How, New York, McGraw
, Power and Personality, New York, W.W. Norton, 1948.
, and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society, A Framework for Political
New Haven, Yale University Press, 1950.
, "World Politics and Personal Insecurity," in A Study of Power,
Glencoe, Ill. Free Press, 1950.
Gustave, The Crowd: A Study of Popular Mind, London, Ernest
Le Dantec, Felix, L'Egoïsme:
Seul Base de Toute
Société, Paris, Flammarion, 1918.
Vladimir Ilych, What Is To Be Done (1902), Oxford, Clarendon
B. A., "Human Behavior in Strictly Determined 3 x 3 matrix game," Behavioral
Science, 5, 1960, pp. 317‑322.
Charles E., The Policy‑Making Process, New York, Prentice Hall,
Seymour Martin, Political Man, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday,
John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, (1689), Oxford,
, Two Treaties on Civil Government, (1689), Cambridge,
University Press, 1988
R. D. and E. W. Adams, "The Determination of Subjective Characteristic
Functions in Games with Misperceived Payoff Functions," in Econometrica,
24, 1956, pp. 158-171.
, and M. Raiffa, Games and Decisions, New York, Wiley, 1957.
Steven, Power: A Radical View, London, Macmillan, 1974.
, "Reply to Bradshaw", Sociology, 10, 1976, pp.127‑132.
, "Reply to MacDonald", in British Journal of Political Science,
7,1977, pp. 418‑9
, "Power and Authority", in Tom Bottomore and Robert Nisbet (eds.), A
History Of Sociological Analysis, New York, Basic Books, 1978, pp.
, "On the Relativity of Power", in S. C. Brown (ed.), Philosophical
Disputes in the Social Sciences, Atlantic Highlands, N.J.,
, "Of Gods and Demons: Habermas and Practical Reason", in John B.
Thompson and David Held (eds.), Habermas: Critical Debates,
Mass., MIT Press, 1982.
, (ed.), Power, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1986.
Martin, Secular Authority: To What Extent it Should be Obeyed,
I. K., "Is Power Essentially Contested", in British Journal of
Political Science, 6,1976, pp.380‑2.
Niccolo, The Prince, (1513) 1532, and The Discourses,
Random House, 1950.
R. M., The Web of Government, New York, MacMillan, 1947.
Duncan and Price, Hugh D., "Scale Positions and 'Power' in the
Senate," in Behavioral Science, 4, 1959, pp. 212‑218.
Salvador de, Disarmament, New York, Coward‑McCann, 1929.
The Laws Of, translated by
Buhler in Sacred Books of the East Series, edited by Max
25, (1886), Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1964.
Zedong, Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse‑Tung, Peking, Foreign
Languages Press, 1966.
, "On Protracted War" (1938), in Selected Military Writings of Mao
Tsetung, Peking, Foreign Language Press, 1961, pp. 187‑266.
James G., "An Introduction to the Theory and Measurement of Influence,"
in American Political Science Review, 49, 1955, pp. 431‑450.
, "Measurement Concepts in the Theory of Influence," in The
Journal of Politics, 19, 2, May 1957, pp. 202‑226.
, (ed.), Handbook of Organizations, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1965.
, "The Power of Power," in David Easton, ed., Varieties of
Political Theory, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice‑Hall, 1966, pp. 39‑70.
Aurelius (Antoninus), Meditations (c.170), translated by George
edited by James Gutmann, New York, Washington Square Press, 1964.
Roderick, The Sociology of Power, London, Routledge and Kegan
Karl, Works, New York, International Publishers, 1975. Notably:
, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts Of 1844.
& Friederich Engels, The German Ideology, 1845‑46.
& Friederich Engels, The Comunist Manifesto, 1848.
, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1852.
, The Civil War in France, 1871.
Rollo, Power and Innocence: A Search for the Sources of Violence,
York, Norton, 1972; London, Fontana, 1976.
David C., Power: The Inner Experience, New York, Irvington
Andrew S., Power and Leadership in Pluralist Systems, Stanford,
University Press, 1969.
Maurice, "A Note on Machiavelli", in Signs, Evanston,
Northwestern University Press, 1964, pp.211‑23.
Charles E., Political Power, New York, McGraw‑Hill, 1934,
Robert, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of The Oligarchical
Tendencies of Modern Democracy (1915), New York, The Free Press,
Stanley, "Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to
Authority," in Current Studies in Social Psychology, Ivan D.
Steiner and Martin Fishbein (eds.), New York, Holt Rinehart &
1965, pp. 243‑62.
C. Wright, "The Structure of Power in American Society," in The
British Journal Of Sociology, 9, 1958, pp. 29‑41.
, The Power Elite, New York, Oxford University Press, 1956.
J. S., A.Scodel, D. Marlowe and H. Rawson, "Some Descriptive Aspects of
Two person Non‑zero Sum Games II," in Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 4, 1960, pp. 193‑197.
William N., Plutonium, Oak Ridge, U.S. Atomic Energy
Montesquieu, Charles, De
L'Esprit des Lois,
(1748), Paris, Gallimard, 1951.
Hans J., Politics Among Nations, The Struggle for Power and Peace,
York, Alfred A. Knopf, 4th edition, 1967.
Peter, Power: A Philosophical Analysis, Manchester, Manchester
Gaetano, The Ruling Class (1895/1923), New York, McGraw‑Hill,
Jack, "Some Questions about the Concept of Power," in Behavioral
13, 1968, pp. 129‑137.
, The Descriptive Analysis of Power, New Haven, Yale University
J. F. Jr., "The Bargaining Problem," in Econometrica, 21,
1953, pp. 128-140.
Richard E., Presidential Power, New York, Wiley, 1960.
Neumann, Franz L., "Approaches to the
Political Power: A Contribution to the Sociology of
Leadership," in Political Science Quarterly, 65,
1950, pp. 161‑180.
J. von, and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior,
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1944.
Friedrich. The Complete Works of Friedrich
Nietzsche, Numerous editions, notably by Oscar Levy (ed), New York,
& Russell, 1909‑1913, reprinted 1964; see also Walter Kaufmann's
translations, New York, Random House ‑‑ Vintage Books, 1967 ‑
‑‑ , Dawn (Morgenrote), (1881)
‑‑ , Thus Spake Zarathustra,
‑‑ , Beyond Good and Evil, (1886)
‑‑ , Ecce Homo, (1888)
‑‑, A Self Portrait from His Letters,
edited and translated by
and Henry Shapiro, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1971
, Briefwechsel: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, compiled by Giorgio
Mazzino Montinari, Berlin, New York, de Gruyter, 1975
Robert, Twilight of Authority, Oxford, Oxford University Press,
Felix E., "'Power' Revisited", Journal of Politics, 40 (1978).
, Political Concepts: A Reconstruction, Oxford, Basil
Vilfredo, The Mind and Society (1916), New York, Dover, 1935.
Talcott, The Structure of Social Action, New York, McGraw Hill,
, The Social System, Glencoe, The Free Press, 1951.
, "On the Concept of Influence," Public Opinion Quarterly, 27,
Spring 1963, pp. 37‑62.
, "Some Reflections on the Place of Force in Social Process," in
Harry Eckstein (ed.), Internal War, New York, The Free Press,
Piaget, Jean, Le Jugement et le
L'enfant, Neuchatel, Delachaux et Niestle, 1967.
Nelson W., "Two Strategies of Influence: Choosing A Majority Leader,
1962," in Robert L. Peabody and Nelson W. Polsby, (eds.), New
on the House of Representatives, Chicago, Rand McNally, 1963, pp.
, Community Power and Political Theory, New Haven, Yale
Robert, Men at the Top, New York, Oxford University Press, 1964.
Anatol, Rights, Games and Debates, Ann Arbor, University of
, and C. Orwant, "Experimental Games, A Review," in Behavioral
Science, 7, 1962, pp. 1‑37.
John, "Justice as Fairness," in The Philosophical Review, 67,
1958, pp. 164‑194.
, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Harvard University Press,
C.P., "On the Phenomenon of Sudden Death in Animals and Man," in Psychosomatic
Medicine, 19, 1957, pp. 191‑198.
William H., "Some Ambiguities in the Notion of Power," American
Political Science Review, 58, 1964, pp. 341‑49.
Richard, Alan Alexandroff, Brian Healy
and Arthur Stein, Power, Balance of Power and Status in Nineteenth
International Relations, Beverly Hills, Sage, 1974.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, Social
New York, Harper & Row, 1984
Rudolph J., "The Dimensions of Conflict Behavior within and between
Nations," in General Systems Yearbook, 8, 1963, pp. 1‑50.
Bertrand, Power: A New Social Analysis, London, George Allen
Ruyssen, Theodore, "Les Facteurs
pouvoir," in Le Pouvoir, Annales de Philosophie politique,
International de Philosophie Politique, Paris, Presses Universitaires
France, Vol. II, 1956‑57, pp.
Thomas, The Strategy of Conflict, New York, Oxford University
Arthur, The World as Will and Idea (1818), tr. R. B. Haldane
and J. Kemp
(1883), New York, Dolphin, 1961
(or Wei Yang) to whom is attributed the Book of Lord Shang, 4th
B.C., English translation by J.J.L. Duyvendak, London, Arthur
L.S. and Martin Shubik, "A Method for Evaluating the Distribution of
in a Committee System," in American Political Science Review,
1954, pp. 787‑792.
, "Simple Games: An Outline of Descriptive Theory," in Behavioral
Science, 7, 1962, pp. 59‑66.
Herbert A., Models of Man: Social and Rational, New York,
Philip E., Microcosm, Structural, Psychological and Religious
Groups, New York, Wiley, 1966.
Georges, Reflections on Violence, (1906), New York, Free Press,
Pitrim A., and W.A. Lunden, Power and Morality, Who Shall Guard the
Guardians?, Boston, P. Sargent, 1959.
D.K., "The Conditioning of the Human Fetus in Utero," in Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 38, 1948, pp. 338‑346.
Benedictus de, The Collected Works of Spinoza, Princeton, N.J.,
Princeton University Press, 1985. Notably:
‑‑ , Tractatus Theologico‑Politicus,
-- , Tractatus
, Ethics, (1677b)
Charles, Power Paradigms in the Social Sciences, Lanham, MD,
Press of America, 1983.
Richard, "Collapsars, Infrared Disks and Invisible Secondaries of
Binary Systems," in Nature, 229, 1971, pp. 180‑183.
John W. and Harold H. Kelley, The Social Psychology of Groups,
Arnold, The Study of History, London, Oxford University Press,
Heinrich von, Politics, lectures from 1863 on ‑ published first
1897‑98. English translation by Blanche Dugdale and Torben de Bille,
Constable and Co., 1916.
, History of Germany in the Nineteenth Century, translation by
Cedar and Eden, London, Jarrold, 1915‑1919.
Giancristoforo, Fenomenologia del Potere, Milan, Nuove
Louis, Makers of the Modern World, New York, Simon and Schuster,
Franςois Marie Arouet, The Complete Works of Voltaire, Geneva,
Institut et Musée Voltaire, 1968. Notably : Lettres
Frans de, Chimpanzee Politics, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
E. V., "Power and Violence," in American Political Science Review,
58, 1964, 350‑60.
Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, New York,
University Press, 1947.
Robert W., "Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence," in Psychological
Review, 66, 5, 1959, pp. 297‑333.
Orjan, Power and Influence in Social Relationships: A Conceptual
Uppsala, doctorial dissertation, University of Uppsala, 1977.
Edward O., Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Cambridge, Harvard
University Press, 1975.
Ludwig, Tractatus Logico‑Philosophicus (1921 in Annalen der
Naturphilosophie), London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961.
Raymond E., "Reputation and Reality in the Study of Community Power,"
in American Sociological Review, 25, 1960, pp. 636‑44.
Dennis H., Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses, London, Basil
Boris, Against the Grain, New York, Summit Books, 1990. The
the Preface to Boris Yeltsin's bent for leadership was inspired by this
phenomenology used is
crudely Husserlian, i.e., an attempt
to consider power as it is in itself, in transcendental sphere, on the
original intuition drawn from primordial phenomena through methodic
Husserl, 1929, 1931. As we shall see, a study of power in itself does
necessarily imply a non‑causal essence independent of power's
existence. On the causal nature of power see Nagel, 1975.
 Even in his
the dichotomy of power and authority, Lukes eventually falls back on
Weberian intertwining of power and authority and reaffirms his own
dimensional view based on political agenda, latent social conflict,
and real interests and institutionalized power. Lukes, 1978,
For a critique of Lukes see Gray, 1980.
 On the
of authority see our later discussion of the conversion of power into
treatments of power at
the international level see, for example, Aron, 1964;
Ash, 1951; Baldwin, 1979; Cline, 1975; Morgenthau, 1967;
1938, ch. XI.
See also his distinction between imperative and normative powers.
Aristotle, Metaphysics, IX, 3, 1047a and 8, 1050a
(1968) pp. 438, (30‑31) and 438 (24). These references are to the Greek
text, as in the English translations of the collected works of
term entelechy has been translated as potency (1908), potentiality
actuality (1984). Neither actuality nor potentiality, or potency,
purposes of our study. Initiation into the entelechy of power is
decision‑making. In the Gulf War, for example, had Saddam Hussein known
what it takes to make the United States convert her potential power
power, he may have avoided the challenge to his power. As intimated by
Norman Schwarzkopf, commander of the Allied forces during the Gulf War,
Iraq occupied only the contested areas of Rumaila and the island of
the United States would have had a hard time mobilizing an army of half
million and mustering a coalition to face the army of Saddam Hussein in
northern Kuwait. Entelechy is the understanding of the
flux. It is its nuance that makes it the proper terminology for our
See also Blair, 1967. The Webster New Collegiate Dictionary (1977)
entelechy as "the realization of form‑giving cause as contrasted
with potential existence". Because entelechy, as a word, is not in
use, and even less is "entelechic" as an adjective, we will often use
course, be the approach to the study
of power. Indeed, although that approach is beyond the purview of our
cannot escape its confines. It is our hope, however, that the reader
the confinement of the terms in order to get to the essential concepts
to convey. To paraphrase Wittgenstein, our propositions are elucidating
as whoever understands them, going through, over and above them,
them as non‑sensical and ascends beyond them (1921, 6.54). Or, put
differently, we hope that each of our terms contains within it the
seeds of its
own destruction and as it dehisces in the reader's mind it gains its
conceptual fertility (see Derrida, 1967, 1974).
 Quoted in
 Hobbes, 1651, ch.X,
1951, p. 121.
 In the
empirical and formal
treatment of power within the societal and interpersonal context many
researchers have pointed out the problems involved in the global
potential and factual power. See notably Dahl, 1961, 1963, 1970;
1962, a and b; Polsby, 1963; Nagel, 1968; Gamson, 1968; Wrong, 1979.
experiments have demonstrated that the brain is capable of registering
sensations in utero. We may thus
infer that the fetus can sense the space limitation when it starts
uterine wall. It has been shown, for example, that the fetus is capable
learning in utero. Spelt, 1948.
Attempts have been made to demonstrate biological grounds for the
drive. Hendrick, 1943 and White, 1959.
 The terms
"his", "him", and "man" are used generically in
this essay and where applicable refer to both female and male genders.
 May, 1972,
p. 20 and Part
I, 5, passim. This statement does not necessarily contradict the point
Eric Fromm about the unawareness of the child of his individuality at
beginning (Fromm, 1941). We are considering dependence and the
of lacks rather than the consciousness of individuality. Our
coincides, rather, with the Hegelian concept of generational
experiments on contact
comfort as animal drive see Harlow and Zimmermann, 1959.
 On other
approaches to the
egocentric nature of the child – and man – see Le Dantec, 1918; and
1967, IV, 6 & V, as well as the latter's earlier writings.
1941; Lane 1959.
 We use
complex" in order to avoid the term "actor", because
"actor" tends to individualize the concept of power which we wish to
keep abstract at this stage. By using the term "complex," we are
emphasizing the complexity of the phenomenon whose whole is not always
of its parts. For us A
represents power; it is not, even in
human terms, an individual but that dimension of him which is power.
we later discuss A as landlord or the
man on top of the wall, we refer to them insofar as they can actualize
power. The term "complex" can thus refer to a component of the power
relationship, or to the relationship itself.
 We use
represented by the letter "p"
where other authors have used the term "outcome." Notably March,
1957; Goldman, 1972. Our purpose is to
symbolically underscore the relationship between the end product of a
relationship with that power relationship as a whole – which we will
 In this
hypothesis, resistance due to inertia is abstracted from Bi’. Also, for conceptual
simplification, any resistance, whether willful or due to inertia, will
considered simply as resistance and dealt with as such in later models
 The term
should be underscored here because i'/i
→ 1 or i‑i' → 0
does not necessarily imply p →
0. As we shall see later, relations
and correlations in the power complex are not mechanical. Take, in the
catatonic model, the example of A
pushing B out of a hideout to exhaust
enemy fire. A may have used kinetic
energy equal to the movement of B, but
the product may result in life for A
and death for B. See our later
discussion on the nature of the product "p" and its
relation to A's
goal in Ch. IV.
and Orwant, 1962, pp. 1‑2.
1962a. We are not
repeating Harsanyi's formal symbols here in order to avoid
 Thus in
movement from first strategy to the second one. Symbols are simplified
because our purpose is to conceptualize rather than formalize
power. With our
present tools and methods of analysis we are better off dealing with
components of power relationships globally and leaving the breakdown
details for the examination of each particular case. As we shall see in
example of landowner‑farmer relationship, Ai or the
landowner's action should be analyzed in more terms than
just reward and threat.
notably, Luce and
Adams, 1956, on the misperception of other parties' aims.
 On cost see
and Barry's treatment of "costs of carrying out promises ...and
threats", in Barry, 1976.
 On more
at formalization see, e.g., Goldman, 1972 and Nagel, 1975, and the
reference to other works.
1935, p. 31.
 The example
fits our model,
and also studies made of n‑person
games which end up in coalitions (notably Kalisch, et al., 1954). It
will be interesting
to compare the influence of the seating arrangements in the Kalish
with coalitions among oil‑producing countries of different geopolitical
areas. (See also Harsanyi, 1962b).
in a more general
sense, the predator/prey relationship may still involve symbiosis.
example, the fact that the carnivorous species, by its predation,
growth of the food‑species population which would otherwise have
increased and gone extinct because of contagion or exhaustion of its
supply. (Hawley, 1950 and Emerson, 1946, p. 13).
conceptual analysis A is represented as a power
time and space. Speaking in strict quantitative terms we can break down
analysis and conceive of A at time t'
as A' when pA is being
accrued to A. Then at t" we can
consider the process of
absorption of pA into A as a new
power complex A" where the inner fermentations of A" can be viewed as a new power
complex of (A‑ic) +pA, which could be represented by other notations and the
of quantiofication renewed. We can, of course, conceive of A
as the existential power at each of the t, t', t "... This is what we have done
– in computer language: LET A
implies that while A may receive a bigger portion of
product p, in the long run, B may
come out of the deal stronger;
because the portion of p it gets is
compatible with its nature, while the part accrued to A
is incompatible with the latter.
1968, p. 94.
means of power, see Baldwin, 1979.
 Mao, 1938 ‑ 1966, p.
 de Madariaga, 1929,
classification in this
chapter is not exhaustive. It is not intended as an attributional
either, but as an analytical tool for the understanding of
dynamics. Our approach cuts across presentations by other authors which
examined here under the headings of sources and spheres of power. The present
part on sources will, in some ways, be an expansion on Dahl's
"influence" (which we shall define later) into resources, skills and
incentives (Dahl, 1967, p. 372, et seq.) and
the non-normative parts of studies by Bachrach and Baratz, Nagel,
Isaac. For other
classifications of the sources of power see
also Hobbes, Leviathan, Ch. X and
MacIver, 1947, p. 87 et. seq.
 See notably Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950; Dahl, 1957, 1970; Bachrach & Baratz, 1962, 1963; Harsanyi, 1962; Nagel, 1968, 1975; Oppenheim 1982.
the nuances of pouvoir and puissance must
be recent linguistic developments as Montesquieu,
for example, uses the two terms invariably and generally with
authority. Montesquieu, 1748, notably ch. XI. See also Aron, 1964.
convolution has to do,
to a large degree, with the French political culture. The Anglo‑Saxon
cultures of Great Britain and America, after decapitating their
(literally in Great Britain and figuratively in the United States)
to the operators of liberal economy and made authority the business of
class democracy. The French, after decapitating their king ended up
with a few
more authoritarian kings and emperors and their power/authority
process developed into an elitist sys tem
where l'autorité kept its aura of
authoritarian power and le pouvoir
rang not without authority.
 It would be
of interest to
study the semantics of comparable terms in other languages in their
and ideological contexts.
Vol. IV, p. 265.
 And in a
than do the authors mentioned in endnote 1, chapter 5.
 Bose, 1948,
p.37. See our
later discussion of the relativity of goals.
Korda lists a whole
array of power "positions", from the power spot in a cocktail party
to the location of an office and the arrangements within it (Korda,
1947, p. 83;
Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950, p. 133.
 See also
Bell, 1975; Knorr,
1975; Barry, 1976; and, for a different tack on the
distinction between influence and power, Morriss 1987.
1969, p. 195.
 See notably
Kelly, 1959, p. 101.
 See, for
and Seyfarth, 1990, on family hierarchies among the Vervet monkeys.
 For a
organization as source of power – and authority – see Galbraith 1983.
1949, Vol. II,
p.189. In terms of game theory see, for example, the concept of pivotal
in Shapley and Shubik, 1954.
 See the
earlier under "Position".
Kaufmann, in his
translation of Ecce Homo, draws our
attention to a passage where Nietzsche, comparing Wagner to
his "will to power as no man ever
possessed it." In "On the Birth of Tragedy", sec.4.
 As revealed
in his literary
work and correspondence, notably, Nietzsche, 1971, 1975. See our later
discussion of the "Coefficients of Power" and the devolution of
power. For variations on the concept of will see Descartes, 1644,
1,32 et seq. ; Spinoza, 1677(b), proposition
XLVIII et seq. ; Locke, 1689(x),
notably ch. XXI; Kant,
Schopenhauer, 1818; and Nietzsche.
 For a
illustration of consciousness developing into its human dimension, see
1963, p. 98 et seq.
 Brentano, 1924, Vol.
1, p. 124.
 Vorstellung is the German word used
by Brentano which means imagination,
representation, conception or idea.
footnote 10, and Dahl, 1970, p.31.
 Merriam, 1934;
Russell, 1938; de
Jouvenel, 1945; Lapierre, 1953‑69; Ruyssen, 1957.
1912, p. 194; see
also Slater, 1966 and Fogelson and Adams, 1977, therein,
notably, the article by Margaret Mackenzie.
example, in the case of
helium atom comprised of two protons, and two neutrons, the atomic
the two isolated protons (1.00812 x 2) and two isolated neutrons
(1.00893 x 2)
is 4.0341. The helium atom weighs 4.0039; there is a difference of
infinitesimal weight discrepancy is compensated by the energy held
helium atom. The weight multiplied by the square of the velocity of
according to Einstein's theory (E = mc2) represents seven
times the energy released by the combination of a carbon atom with
atom to produce a molecule of carbon dioxide in the familiar process of
combustion. Craven, 1964, pp. 15‑16.
 See our
of power and authority in Chapter IX.
 Le Bon,
1903, p.27 passim; see also Canetti, 1962;
1943, 1971, pp.180‑181.
See also Lenin, 1902; Mao 1938.
Century B.C.; Han Fei Tzu, 3rd Century B.C.;
(1513) 1532; Hobbes, 1651; Treitschke, 1863...; Nietzsche, 1883
 Parts of
this section are
reproduced from Khoshkish, 1979.
 Lindblom, 1970, p. 70 et. seq.
 In Lukes'
which exercise power within systems and structural determinants. See,
Lukes 1974, 1978 and 1979, keeping in mind the possibility of confusion
power and authority.
 For an
subsistence and cumulative economies see Khoshkish, 1979, pp.40‑47.
 In his own words: "Sur
que gravit la France, ma mission est toujours de la guider vers le
tandis que toutes les voix d'en bas l'appellent sans cesse à
de Gaulle, 1970, p. 314. Something
had to give and did. But in the meantime de Gaulle managed to pull the
back on her feet; with some kicking and screaming.
 These last three paragraphs are textual
transcriptions from our study on power presented in 1971. See the
 See Khoshkish, 1976, and our later
discussion of legitimization of Power into Authority.
 A uranium‑239 nucleus, formed
when a uranium‑238 nucleus captures a neutron, has a half‑life of
23.5 minutes. By emitting a β particle it then forms neptunium‑239
with a half life of 2.35 days. Neptunium‑239, in turn, emits a β
particle and converts itself into a plutonium‑239 nucleus which can
over 24.360 years. Miner, 1964.
 Known in physical science as the
thermonuclear reaction which takes place by the fusion of the hydrogen
(deuterium and/or tritium) atom.
experiments have shown for example, that in a two person zero‑sum
with saddle point, the subjects who figured out the saddle point
taking risks and losing in order to alleviate boredom and "to make the
game interesting" (Lieberman, 1960). In another game experiment it was
observed that participants considered competing and conquering the
be more significant than cooperating with the opponent for the
lucrative gain. (Minas et.
different views on the
social aspects of resistance see the discussion "contestability," e.g.,
by Connolly, 1974; MacDonald, 1976; and Lukes, 1977.
 As new
discoveries blur the lines of separation between anima and
mater ia, the
study of consciousness about hierarchy and power could gain by
other species; starting with the obvious consciousness of primates and
down the line See, notably, works by Wilson, 1975 (especially the
domination), Griffin, 1984; de Waal, 1989; and Cheney and Seyfarth,
 Notably, Luther, 1523;
"Brutus" 1579; Bodin, 1579; Grotius, 1625; Hobbes, 1647, 1651;
Harrington, 1656; Spinoza, 1670; Bossuet, 1679; La Bruyère,
1688; Locke, 1689;
Fénelon, 1699; Montesquieu, 1721, 1734, 1748; Voltaire, 1734,
 Austin points out: "But the governed,
collectively or in mass,
arealso the superior of the monarch: who is checked in the abuse of his
byhis fear of exciting their anger; and of arousing to active
might which slumbers in the multitude." Austin, Lecture I.
 It is
because of these
contingencies that traditional models are seldom the sole
dimension by which
the coefficient and resistant of power are mediated into authority.
is usually the buttress of other dimensions: consecration, as in the
right of kings, or constitutionalization as in a constitutional
 See, for example, paragraphs 318 and
374 of The Laws of Manu, pp.309 &
 In Darkness
at Noon, Arthur Koestler masterfully depicts
dialectical conviction of the accused Rubachev (very much resembling
whose confessions and last plea in 1938 were eloquent examples of the
made here). Recent rehabilitations by the Soviet government and
made by the families of the victims support the scenarios developed by
1965, p. 106.
cit. See also Rawls, 1972,
where he broadens the concept of Justice.
 The formation of values were developed
elsewhere. See Khoshkish, 1974.