because power is primordial, elemental, in our daily lives, we rarely stop to address it analyticallyâto identify exactly where it resides, how it works, how far it can go, and what stops it from going further.
There is a very good reason for this: power is hard to measure. In fact, strictly speaking, it is impossible to measure. You cannot tally it up and rank it. You can rank only what appear to be its agents, sources, and manifestations. Who has the most money in the bank? Which company can buy another one, or which has the largest assets on its balance sheet? Which army has the most soldiers or tanks or fighter jets? Which political party won the most votes in the last election or controls more seats in parliament? These things can all be measured and recorded. But they do not measure power. They are only proxies. As gauges of power, they are unreliable, and even when tallied up they do not tell the whole story about how powerful someone or something is.
Still, power pervades everything from the system of nations to markets and politicsâindeed, any situation in which people or organizations compete or individuals interact. Wherever competition takes place, a distribution of power exists, and it is always relevant to human experience. Though not the only motivation behind such experience, the quest for power is surely one of the most important.
So how can we usefully talk about power? If we are to understand how power is obtained, used, or lost, we need a way to discuss it that is not vague, grandiose, or misleading. Unfortunately, most of our conversations about power never actually make it past those pitfalls.
H OW TO T ALK A BOUT P OWER
There is a way to talk productively about power. Yes, power itself is partly material and partly psychological, partly tangible and partly something that affects our imagination. As a commodity or force, power is hard to pin down and quantify. But as a dynamic that shapes a specific situation, it can be evaluated, and its limits and latitude assessed.
Take, for example, the ritualized group portrait of the heads of state and government who gather at a summit of the Group of Eight influential countries. Here are the president of the United States, the chancellor of Germany, the president of France, the prime minister of Japan, the prime minister of Italy, and others of their rank. Each of them is âin power.â In that respect, they are peers. And indeed, each of them has a great deal of power. Does it come from the prestige of their office, its history, and the ritual that accompanies it? From their victory in an election? From their command over a large civil service and military? From their ability to direct, with a stroke of a pen, the spending of billions of dollars raised by taxes on the labor and commerce of their citizens? Obviously, it is a mix of all these factors and others too. That is power as a forceâpalpable, but hard to disaggregate and quantify.
Now, with the same photo in mind, imagine the latitude and limits that these leaders enjoy or confront in different situations. What happened during the summit meeting itself? What issues were discussed, what agreements were negotiated, and, in each case, whose will prevailed? Did the American president, often labeled âthe most powerful man in the world,â win every time? What coalitions formed, and who made what concessions? Then imagine each leader returning to his or her country and addressing the domestic agenda of the moment: budget cuts, labor conflicts, crime, immigration, corruption scandals, military deployments, and whatever else might be going on in that particular region. Some of these leaders command strong parliamentary majorities; others depend on fragile coalitions. Some, through their office, have great scope to rule by executive order or decree; others do not. Some enjoy great personal prestige or high approval ratings; others are beset by scandal or politically vulnerable.
There is a very good reason for this: power is hard to measure. In fact, strictly speaking, it is impossible to measure. You cannot tally it up and rank it. You can rank only what appear to be its agents, sources, and manifestations. Who has the most money in the bank? Which company can buy another one, or which has the largest assets on its balance sheet? Which army has the most soldiers or tanks or fighter jets? Which political party won the most votes in the last election or controls more seats in parliament? These things can all be measured and recorded. But they do not measure power. They are only proxies. As gauges of power, they are unreliable, and even when tallied up they do not tell the whole story about how powerful someone or something is.
Still, power pervades everything from the system of nations to markets and politicsâindeed, any situation in which people or organizations compete or individuals interact. Wherever competition takes place, a distribution of power exists, and it is always relevant to human experience. Though not the only motivation behind such experience, the quest for power is surely one of the most important.
So how can we usefully talk about power? If we are to understand how power is obtained, used, or lost, we need a way to discuss it that is not vague, grandiose, or misleading. Unfortunately, most of our conversations about power never actually make it past those pitfalls.
H OW TO T ALK A BOUT P OWER
There is a way to talk productively about power. Yes, power itself is partly material and partly psychological, partly tangible and partly something that affects our imagination. As a commodity or force, power is hard to pin down and quantify. But as a dynamic that shapes a specific situation, it can be evaluated, and its limits and latitude assessed.
Take, for example, the ritualized group portrait of the heads of state and government who gather at a summit of the Group of Eight influential countries. Here are the president of the United States, the chancellor of Germany, the president of France, the prime minister of Japan, the prime minister of Italy, and others of their rank. Each of them is âin power.â In that respect, they are peers. And indeed, each of them has a great deal of power. Does it come from the prestige of their office, its history, and the ritual that accompanies it? From their victory in an election? From their command over a large civil service and military? From their ability to direct, with a stroke of a pen, the spending of billions of dollars raised by taxes on the labor and commerce of their citizens? Obviously, it is a mix of all these factors and others too. That is power as a forceâpalpable, but hard to disaggregate and quantify.
Now, with the same photo in mind, imagine the latitude and limits that these leaders enjoy or confront in different situations. What happened during the summit meeting itself? What issues were discussed, what agreements were negotiated, and, in each case, whose will prevailed? Did the American president, often labeled âthe most powerful man in the world,â win every time? What coalitions formed, and who made what concessions? Then imagine each leader returning to his or her country and addressing the domestic agenda of the moment: budget cuts, labor conflicts, crime, immigration, corruption scandals, military deployments, and whatever else might be going on in that particular region. Some of these leaders command strong parliamentary majorities; others depend on fragile coalitions. Some, through their office, have great scope to rule by executive order or decree; others do not. Some enjoy great personal prestige or high approval ratings; others are beset by scandal or politically vulnerable.
Similar Books
