power is power essay

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

School Education /

Essay on Knowledge is Power: Samples in 100, 200, 300 Words

Updated on
Dec 15, 2023

‘ Knowledge is power’ phrase is derived from a Latin term, which is attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, a well-known essayist of all times. Knowledge is power has been accepted widely and timelessly as it underscores the significance of knowledge in empowering people, societies and countries .

Benjamin Franklin once said, ‘An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.’ Knowledge not only improves a person’s understanding of the world but also teaches them life lessons to develop decision-making skills and contribute to the betterment of society. Below we have discussed some essays on knowledge is power in different word limits.

Table of Contents

1 Essay on Knowledge is Power in 100 Words
2 Essay on Knowledge is Power in 200 Words
3 Essay on Knowledge is Power in 300 Words

Also Read: Traditions and Celebrations for Christmas Around the World

Essay on Knowledge is Power in 100 Words

‘Knowledge is power’ is a timeless truth. A person with knowledge can empower himself to make informed decisions, enhance personal growth and contribute to the development of society. Knowledge equips us with effective tools to navigate the challenges of life and achieve our goals in real-time. The pursuit of knowledge is education. A person who is educated and has the right knowledge will find success in life.

The world we live in is driven by knowledge-based education and innovations. From agriculture to healthcare, every activity and field requires you to have proper knowledge and understanding of it. Whether it is at the individual level or global level, people who prioritize education and knowledge enjoy economic prosperity and influence.

Essay on Knowledge is Power in 200 Words

Knowledge is so powerful that it can reshape the entire world or destroy it, depending on the purpose for which it is used. The phrase, ‘Knowledge is Power’ was given by Sir Francis Bacon. With knowledge, one can have a profound impact on their life and the people surrounding it.

Knowledge emperors a person in various ways, from personal growth to changes at the global level. With knowledge, we gain new skills, insights and perspectives about a particular subject. This equips us to excel in our chosen field, pursue all our aspirations and fulfil our dream life.

A person with the right knowledge can make informed decisions. If you are someone who possesses broad knowledge about different subjects, it will be very easy for you to critically analyze any situation, weigh options and make choices that best suit your plans. This not only leads to better personal outcomes but also fosters a sense of autonomy and self-determination. Knowledge is considered as the driving force behind progress. Scientific discoveries, technological innovations, cultural evolution and social developments are all fueled by accumulated knowledge. A very classic example of this is the history of human civilization. We must use knowledge knowledge ethically and ensure its equitable distribution or access.

Also Read – Essay on Unity in Diversity

Essay on Knowledge is Power in 300 Words

Knowledge is deemed as the most powerful tool a human possesses. It is the cornerstone of power in our modern society. The universally acknowledged phrase ‘Knowledge is power’ highlights the profound impact knowledge has on individuals and society, and both.

The first thing to know about knowledge is that it is the key to personal development and empowerment. When a person acquires knowledge, they open doors to personal growth and development. Depending on the person’s expertise and field, this empowerment can come in various forms. I person with the right knowledge often finds himself confident, adaptable, and capable of overcoming obstacles in life.

Moreover, knowledge equips you to make informed decisions. We are living in a world which is driven by information. A person who is well-equipped with knowledge about his or her specific field can critically assess a situation, evaluate the options and make choices that best suit their individual needs and values. This not only enhances their personal lives but also fosters a sense of agency and self-determination.

Knowledge is the driving force behind progress, development and innovation. From the time of industrialization to the invention of the internet, knowledge has been the deciding factor for transformative change, improving the quality of life for countless individuals.

The importance of knowledge is not only limited to individual benefits of scientific discoveries. It also plays a critical role in a country’s governance. It allows you to make informed political decisions, and actively participate in the democratic process. In this way, knowledge serves as a safeguard against tyranny and injustice.

At last, the phrase ‘knowledge is power’ remains a timeless truth that highlights the profound impact of knowledge on a person’s development and societal changes. With this power comes the responsibility to use knowledge ethically and ensure equal access for all, as knowledge remains a vital path to personal and collective empowerment in our ever-changing world.

Essay on Save Environment
Essay on Junk Food
Essay on Unity in Diversity
Essay on Water Pollution
Essay on Gaganyaan

The phrase ‘knowledge itself is power’ denotes the meaning that knowing empowers your understanding of the world so that you can make informed decisions for yourself and others. In this way, knowledge is equal to power, as it can help in shaping the future of an individual to an entire country.

Knowledge is considered as an accumulation of information, skills facts and understanding acquired through deep learning, experience and observation. It represents a deep and organised awareness of the world around us, encompassing various fields of knowledge, such as culture, science and technology, history and practical know-how. Knowledge empowers individuals by providing the tools to make informed decisions, solve problems, and navigate life’s complexities. It serves as a foundation for personal growth, innovation, and societal progress, shaping our perceptions and actions.

A person can improve their knowledge by reading informative articles, newspapers and books, enrolling in courses related to their field of study, attending workshops and seminars, engaging in discussions, etc.

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu .

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2025

September 2025

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

Talk to our experts

1800-120-456-456

Knowledge is Power Essay

Essay on Knowledge is Power

Knowledge means understanding of something such as facts, information, description and skills. It is the source of power to man and this distinguishes him from other creatures of the universe. Though man is physically weaker than many animals, for he cannot see as far as an eagle, nor carry heavy loads as some animals. Nevertheless he is the most powerful creature on earth. This power basically comes to him from knowledge not from physical strength. ‘Knowledge is power’ means that a man has education and a complete control on his life by using the strength of knowledge.

The ability to acquire knowledge, preserve and pass it on to the future generation makes man powerful. It enables him to control the forces of nature and use them for his benefit. This power of knowledge, if used wisely can bring happiness to mankind. Knowledge leads to wisdom, respect and consequently power.

Why is Knowledge Powerful?

Knowledge does not always come with power. Knowledge is the state of awareness or understanding and learning of specific information about something and it is gained from experience or study. This means a person has the resources to express his views dynamically and make intelligent decisions based on his every day situations, awareness and understanding.

This doesn’t make a man powerful. A man is said to be powerful when he uses his knowledge to mobilize in the right direction. When a man has the ability or capacity to act or perform effectively with his knowledge then he gains Power.

Benefits of Knowledge

Knowledge is important to shape our personality and perfect our behavior and dealings with people.

Knowledge hones thinking skills. Knowledge is necessary in order to be able to formulate an opinion or develop a line of thought.

A person gets the power to analyze and assert situations by his knowledge.

With knowledge, a man can master the techniques of adjusting and accommodating with changes in the surroundings and life situations.

Knowledge helps a man to face adversities and stay balanced.

It is a key to removing the darkness of ignorance.

Knowledge helps in enhancing more options in the professional career of the individuals.

Knowledge helps in boosting confidence in individuals.

Education and knowledge together can provide better governance to the country.

A nation can have true democracy when the citizens of the country are knowledgeable about both social and economic conditions.

Prospective of Knowledge

Education is a key to success and this statement holds true as being knowledgeable can lead to a successful life. Knowledge will never diminish like any physical entities. In fact, the evolution of civilization in our society has happened due to the increase in the knowledge base of humans. Progress in the medical field has been made possible by developing rational thinking through the use of knowledge. Knowledge is the foremost tool of empowerment. It is the key to success in life. Knowledge, along with the power to think and analyze, differentiate men from animals. Knowledge teaches us to be humble and compassionate. People with very humble backgrounds have risen to power and wealth, on the strength of knowledge and skill. Only this can maintain harmony in the society.

Writing the Knowledge is Power Essay

Writing the Knowledge is Power Essay can be quite easy. Before you start the essay, collect all the details about the proverb to understand its meaning. This way, you can curate a meaningful essay with all the right facts and relevant points. Moreover, you should know the correct format for writing an essay. You can refer to the Knowledge is Power Essay available on Vedantu’s website to understand the format and learn more about the topic. Here are some tips to follow while writing your own essay on Knowledge is Power:

Gather all the information you can from textbooks to the Internet about knowledge before you begin the essay.

Once you have collected all the details, start your essay with an insightful introduction to the topic to give the readers an idea of what they will be learning from the essay.

While writing the main body, do not go off-topic and write irrelevant points. Everything you write should be entirely focused on the topic i.e. Knowledge is Power.

Add a good conclusion at the end to summarize the entire essay and give your final statement about the topic i.e. Knowledge is Power.

Once you have completed the essay, proofread it to find mistakes and rectify them immediately.

If you have time, revise the essay and check whether you can add more powerful points to make your writing more effective.

Points to be included in the Knowledge is Power Essay

Before you start writing your Knowledge is Power Essay, you should have a clear understanding of what points to include. This will save a lot of your time and help you finish the essay in much less time. You can gather all the information regarding the topic i.e. Knowledge is Power, and then start writing. Here are the points that you can add in the essay:

In the introduction, write mainly about that specific proverb, i.e. Knowledge is Power, to give your reader an idea of what you are reading.

When you come to the main body, add relevant points and explain your opinions on the topic. For example, you can write about why knowledge is considered powerful or the benefits of knowledge.

Try adding quotes related to the topic in your essay to make it more impactful. You can use these quotes before your opening statement or support the information in the main body.

While writing your conclusion, add a broad statement that summarizes the essay. Do not add any new ideas or information in the conclusion. You only have to sum up the entire Knowledge is Power Essay at this stage.

FAQs on Knowledge is Power Essay

1. How Do You Define Knowledge?

Knowledge means understanding of facts, information, description and skills. It refers to awareness of something gained by education or experience. Here are the three different types of knowledge:

Explicit Knowledge: It refers to the type of knowledge that can be easily documented, stored, curated, and accessed. For example, information available in textbooks, the internet, etc.

Implicit Knowledge: The practical application of explicit knowledge is known as implicit knowledge. For example, how to drive a car or how to swim.

Tacit Knowledge: Any knowledge gained from personal experiences and context is known as tacit knowledge. For example, body language, leadership, humour, etc.

2. Why is Knowledge Considered Powerful?

Knowledge is powerful because a man can mobilize his life into the right direction. Knowledge can be both creator and destructive of our society. Through knowledge only, one can differentiate between right and wrong and make an informed decision. It also helps you plan your future and takes you on the path to success. With more knowledge, you will be able to overcome your weaknesses and gain more self-confidence. It encourages a positive attitude towards life and keeps you motivated to survive and thrive in the real world.

3. Mention Two Benefits Of Knowledge.

Knowledge is something that you gain throughout your life. It comes with an infinite number of benefits and keeps you on the right track. Knowledge encourages you to act morally and help others in any way possible. Moreover, it boosts your confidence to face any difficulty without being dependent on others. The two benefits of knowledge are:

Knowledge shapes our personality and behavior with others.

Knowledge with proper education can provide better governance to a nation.

4. Why is Less Knowledge Dangerous?

Less knowledge or half knowledge is very dangerous as it leads a man to a benighted condition for the rest of his life. He will never be able to excel in any field to the fullest. Less knowledge can mislead a person into making wrong decisions that have a negative impact on his/her life. Usually, people with less knowledge are only aware of the major aspects of a subject. They do not focus on the minor aspects, which gives them an unbalanced view of that particular subject.

5. From where can I get the Knowledge is Power Essay?

You can get the Knowledge is Power Essay from Vedantu’s official website and mobile app. Vedantu provides you with the Knowledge is Power Essay without charging you anything. You can just visit our website and search for the essay to get access to it. Moreover, we offer a huge variety of study material for the English language to help students get better at the subject. You will find various topics of grammar, letter writing, speech writing, and much more only on Vedantu.com. Use all this study material to improve your writing skills and gain more knowledge about the English language.

Skip to main content
Skip to secondary menu
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Knowledge Is Power Essay | Essay on Knowledge Is Power for Students and Children

February 14, 2024 by Prasanna

Knowledge Is Power Essay: Knowledge is a state of awareness and understanding. It refers to facts or information obtained, the wisdom acquired through learning, life’s experiences, and skill enhancement.

Knowledge gives one the power to mobilize in the right direction. That’s the reason knowledge is powerful. Acquiring knowledge means a person obtains resourcefulness and criticizes the informative and useful data. This makes a person well-informed and makes them take d intelligent decisions based on their everyday situations, awareness, and understanding.

You can read more Essay Writing about articles, events, people, sports, technology many more. Like this about knowledge is power essay.

Thus, the statement ‘ pen is mightier than a sword’ is right as the knowledge gives a man more powerful than a sword. The more knowledge one acquires, the more powerful he/she becomes.

Short and Long Essay on Knowledge is Power in English for Students and Children

Below is a descriptive essay on knowledge is power for students on the topic, consisting of 400-500 words. A short essay is provided for children consisting of 150-200 words.

Long Essay on Knowledge is Power in English 500 words

This extended essay is suitable for students studying in classes 6,7,8, 9, and 10, respectively. This essay is written to assist and guide success to those aspiring students applying for competitive examinations.

Knowledge is a broad concept with no possible ending. Acquiring knowledge involve steps such as communication, logic, perception, and cognitive processes. Knowledge is a human’s capacity to identify and accept the truth. However, it can be used for positive well-being as well as negative purposes. Thus gives the power to create and destroy at the same time. Knowledge can be used for personal growth as well as the growth of a community, state, and nation. However, some people use knowledge negatively, leading to the harm of individuals or society on the whole.

Only a few people understand the real importance of knowledge. The statement ‘every educated person is knowledgeable; however, every knowledgeable person is educated’ might not make sense but is the truth. The world around us homes many educated people who still have no subject knowledge of what they have studied.

Knowledge helps you ride a bike, play the piano, solve a riddle, etc. It helps us prevent us from making the same mistake twice. Besides, one cannot buy knowledge; one has to earn his/her way to it.

Today’s world needs the power of knowledge and education. Without this, life becomes impossible to keep up the fast-paced world. However, knowledge on one particular subject will not aid your success. It is equally important to know how to make effective use of knowledge to succeed. Besides, one should know the other aspects of a subject.

Knowledge is an essential tool to obtain positive changes in our country or society. It gives individuals the future’s glance and our in development. All countries are technologically advanced and use advanced machinery and tools through the result of knowledge. Deadly weapons and explosives do not make a country powerful, rather knowledge towards betterment does.

Knowledge impacts and influences our growth and relationship with work and life. It can last for a lifetime and is highly essential for personal growth and development. One can acquire knowledge through any form such as art, dance, history, architecture, or even from one’s personal development. Knowledge gives one wisdom to make life-changing decisions in life. However, to learn more, progress, and achieve one’s goals, it is important to adopt a positive mindset.

A country’s growth and development is not through harmful weapons and armory, but with the amount of knowledgeable people. This is the real power of knowledge.

Shared knowledge helps one communicate and understand others. When we discuss certain topics with our family, friends, or elders, we give as well acquire knowledge. Through communication, we can recognize our growth and learn more to clear our doubts.

A knowledgeable person is the richest, and it cannot be stolen. However, power and money can be taken anytime. Knowledge holds the potential to solve life-related problems. It sharpens one’s problem solving and reasoning skills and aids in the smooth functioning of one’s brain. Through knowledge, we become smart enough to solve problems efficiently.

Thus, it is rightly said that knowledge helps people to bloom and keeps them away from corruption. It brings prosperity and happiness to one’s community or nation. Above all, knowledge opens doors to success.

Short Essay on Knowledge is Power in English 200 words

The short essay is suitable for children up to class 6, respectively. To help the children with their essay assignments and provide a framing guideline for comprehension.

The famous proverb ‘knowledge is power’ was stated by Francis Bacon. This proverb means that knowledge is indeed the most powerful. Knowledge is the difference that separates man from animals. Human beings are said to be the most powerful creatures because of the power of knowledge.

Knowledge plays a significant role in our lives and lets us know the effective ways to solve uneventful circumstances. Knowledge is great fame that helps us get easy access to success, name, fame, position, and power in life. Even though money and strength are important tools of power, nothing is more powerful than knowledge. However, our money and strength cannot buy or steal knowledge. Knowledge can only be achieved only through devotion, patience, and continuous practice.

Knowledge helps us improve our potential quality of life. Knowledge is the only valuable thing that cannot be stolen and remains in our lives forever. We need to distribute our knowledge with others for the betterment of the others. Knowledge gives one revolutionary idea that will help for the betterment of the community or nation on the whole.

So, we can say that knowledge is a pillar to success and happiness.

10 Lines on Knowledge is Power Essay in English

The proverb ‘Knowledge is Power’ means that knowledge is the real power that stays with us throughout our life
Knowledge bears great importance in our life
Knowledge assists us to differentiate between right and wrong. It helps us overcome any situations and dangers around us
It helps in the growth and development of one’s community or nation.
Through the effective use of knowledge, one can achieve success life
Knowledge impacts our personal development and influences our growth and relationship with work and life.
With the help of knowledge, one can solve problems. It enhances our reasoning and problem-solving skills.
One needs to remain open-minded to accept and learn knowledge. It helps in building a strong base.
Communication plays a vital role in transferring knowledge. It helps us identify our mistakes and help us clarify our doubts.
Knowledge shapes our personal and professional life and helps us achieve success.

FAQ’s on Knowledge is Power Essay

Question 1. What does the proverb ‘Knowledge is Power’ mean?

Answer: This proverb ‘Knowledge is Power’ means that knowledge is indeed the most powerful and valuable thing in our life. It is a state of awareness and understanding.

Question 2. Who quoted the proverb ‘ Knowledge is Power’?

Answer: Francis Bacon quoted the famous proverb

Question 3. Why is Knowledge important?

Answer: Knowledge is important as it helps in communication, personal growth, and development, the success of an individual and nation, and solves problems.

Picture Dictionary
English Speech
English Slogans
English Letter Writing
English Essay Writing
English Textbook Answers
Types of Certificates
ICSE Solutions
Selina ICSE Solutions
ML Aggarwal Solutions
HSSLive Plus One
HSSLive Plus Two
Kerala SSLC
Distance Education

The Subject and Power

— Foucault, Michel. “ The Subject and Power.” In Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics , edited by H. Dreyfus and P. Rabinow, 208-226. The University of Chicago Press, 1983.

This essay was written by Michel Foucault in 1982 as an afterword to Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics by Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow

“ Why Study Power? The Question of the Subject” was written in English by Foucault;
“ How Is Power Exercised?” was translated from the French by Leslie Sawyer.

Why Study Power? The Question of the Subject

The ideas which I would like to discuss here represent neither a theory nor a methodology. I would like to say, ﬁrst of all, what has been the goal of my work during the last twenty years. It has not been to analyze the phenomena of power, nor to elaborate the foundations of such an analysis. My objective, instead, has been to create a history of the different modes by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects. My work has dealt with three modes of objectiﬁcation which transform human beings into subjects. The ﬁrst is the modes of inquiry which try to give themselves the status of sciences; for example, the objectivizing of the speaking subject in grammaire générale , philology, and linguistics. Or again, in this ﬁrst mode, the objectivizing of the productive subject, the subject who labors, in the analysis of wealth and of economics. Or, a third example, the objectivizing of the sheer fact of being alive in natural history or biology. In the second part of my work, I have studied the objectivizing of the subject in what I shall call “ dividing practices.” The subject is either divided inside himself or divided from others. This process objectivizes him. Examples are the mad and the sane, the sick and the healthy, the criminals and the “ good boys.” Finally, I have sought to study —it is my current work— the way a human being turns himself into a subject. For example, I have chosen the domain of sexuality —how men have learned to recognize themselves as subjects of “ sexuality.” Thus, it is not power but the subject which is the general theme of my research. It is true that I became quite involved with the question of power. It soon appeared to me that, while the human subject is placed in relations of production and of signiﬁcation, he is equally placed in power relations which are very complex. Now, it seemed to me that economic history and theory provided a good instrument for relations of production and that linguistics and semiotics offered instruments for studying relations of signiﬁcation; but for power relations we had no tools of study. We had recourse only to ways of thinking about power based on legal models, that is: What legitimates power? Or, we had recourse to ways of thinking about power based on institutional models, that is: What is the state? It was therefore necessary to expand the dimensions of a deﬁnition of power if one wanted to use this deﬁnition in studying the objectivizing of the subject. Do we need a theory of power? Since a theory assumes a prior objectiﬁcation, it cannot be asserted as a basis for analytical work. But this analytical work cannot proceed without an ongoing conceptualization. And this conceptualization implies critical thought — a constant checking. The ﬁrst thing to check is what I shall call the “ conceptual needs.” I mean that the conceptualization should not be founded on a theory of the object-the conceptualized object is not the single criterion of a good conceptualization. We have to know the historical conditions which motivate our conceptualization. We need a historical awareness of our present circumstance. The second thing to check is the type of reality with which we are dealing.

A writer in a well-known French newspaper once expressed his surprise: “ Why is the notion of power raised by so many people today? Is it such an important subject? Is it so independent that it can be discussed without taking into account other problems?” This writer’s surprise amazes me. I feel skeptical about the assumption that this question has been raised for the ﬁrst time in the twentieth century. Anyway, for us it is not only a theoretical question but a part of our experience. I’d like to mention only two “ pathological forms” —those two “ diseases of power”— fascism and Stalinism. One of the numerous reasons why they are, for us, so puzzling is that in spite of their historical uniqueness they are not quite original. They used and extended mechanisms already present in most other societies. More than that: in spite of their own internal madness, they used to a large extent the ideas and the devices of our political rationality. What we need is a new economy of power relations —the word “ economy” being used in its theoretical and practical sense. To put it in other words: since Kant, the role of philosophy is to prevent reason from going beyond the limits of what is given in experience; but from the same moment —that is, since the development of the modern state and the political management of society— the role of philosophy is also to keep watch over the excessive powers of political rationality, which is a rather high expectation. Everybody is aware of such banal facts. But the fact that they are banal does not mean they don’t exist. What we have to do with banal facts is to discover —or try to discover— which speciﬁc and perhaps original problem is connected with them. The relationship between rationalization and excesses of political power is evident. And we should not need to wait for bureaucracy or concentration camps to recognize the existence of such relations. But the problem is: What to do with such an evident fact? Shall we try reason? To my mind, nothing would be more sterile. First, because the ﬁeld has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Second, because it is senseless to refer to reason as the contrary entity to non-reason. Last, because such a trial would trap us into playing the arbitrary and boring part of either the rationalist or the irrationalist. Shall we investigate this kind of rationalism which seems to be speciﬁc to our modern culture and which originates in Aufklärung ? I think that was the approach of some of the members of the Frankfurt School. My purpose, however, is not to start a discussion of their works, although they are most important and valuable. Rather, I would suggest another way of investigating the links between rationalization and power. It may be wise not to take as a whole the rationalization of society or of culture but to analyze such a process in several ﬁelds, each with reference to a fundamental experience: madness, illness, death, crime, sexuality, and so forth. I think that the word “ rationalization” is dangerous. What we have to do is analyze speciﬁc rationalities rather than always invoke the progress of rationalization in general. Even if the Aufklärung has been a very important phase in our history and in the development of political technology, I think we have to refer to much more remote processes if we want to understand how we have been trapped in our own history. I would like to suggest another way to go further toward a new economy of power relations, a way which is more empirical, more directly related to our present situation, and which implies more relations between theory and practice. It consists of taking the forms of resistance against different forms of power as a starting point. To use another metaphor, it consists of using this resistance as a chemical catalyst so as to bring to light power relations, locate their position, and ﬁnd out their point of application and the methods used. Rather than analyzing power from the point of view of its internal rationality, it consists of analyzing power relations through the antagonism of strategies. For example, to ﬁnd out what our society means by sanity, perhaps we should investigate what is happening in the ﬁeld of insanity. And what we mean by legality in the ﬁeld of illegality. And, in order to understand what power relations are about, perhaps we should investigate the forms of resistance and attempts made to dissociate these relations. As a starting point, let us take a series of oppositions which have developed over the last few years: opposition to the power of men over women, of parents over children, of psychiatry over the mentally ill, of medicine over the population, of administration over the ways people live. It is not enough to say that these are anti-authority struggles; we must try to deﬁne more precisely what they have in common.

They are “ transversal” struggles; that is, they are not limited to one country. Of course, they develop more easily and to a greater extent in certain countries, but they are not conﬁned to a particular political or economic form of government.
The aim of these struggles is the power effects as such. For example, the medical profession is not criticized primarily because it is a proﬁt-making concern but because it exercises an uncontrolled power over people’s bodies, their health, and their life and death.
These are “ immediate” struggles for two reasons. In such struggles people criticize instances of power which are the closest to them, those which exercise their action on individuals. They do not look for the “ chief enemy” but for the immediate enemy. Nor do they expect to ﬁnd a solution to their problem at a future date (that is, liberations, revolutions, end of class struggle). In comparison with a theoretical scale of explanations or a revolutionary order which polarizes the historian, they are anarchistic struggles. But these are not their most original points. The following seem to me to be more speciﬁc.
They are struggles which question the status of the individual: on the one hand, they assert the right to be different, and they underline everything which makes individuals truly individual. On the other hand, they attack everything which separates the individual, breaks his links with others, splits up community life, forces the individual back on himself, and ties him to his own identity in a constraining way. These struggles are not exactly for or against the “ individual” but rather they are struggles against the “ government of individualization.”
They are an opposition to the effects of power which are linked with knowledge, competence, and qualiﬁcation: struggles against the privileges of knowledge. But they are also an opposition against secrecy, deformation, and mystifying representations imposed on people. There is nothing “ scientistic” in this (that is, a dogmatic belief in the value of scientiﬁc knowledge), but neither is it a skeptical or relativistic refusal of all veriﬁed truth. What is questioned is the way in which knowledge circulates and functions, its relations to power. In short, the régime du savoir .
Finally, all these present struggles revolve around the question: Who are we? They are a refusal of these abstractions, of economic and ideological state violence, which ignore who we are individually, and also a refusal of a scientiﬁc or administrative inquisition which determines who one is.

To sum up, the main objective of these struggles is to attack not so much “ such or such” an institution of power, or group, or elite, or class but rather a technique, a form of power. This form of power applies itself to immediate everyday life which categorizes the individual, marks him by his own individuality, attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on him which he must recognize and which others have to recognize in him. It is a form of power which makes individuals subjects. There are two meanings of the word “ subject”: subject to someone else by control and dependence; and tied to his own identity by a conscience or self-knowledge. Both meanings suggest a form of power which subjugates and makes subject to. Generally, it can be said that there are three types of struggles: either against forms of domination (ethnic, social, and religious); against forms of exploitation which separate individuals from what they produce; or against that which ties the individual to himself and submits him to others in this way (struggles against subjection, against forms of subjectivity and submission). I think that in history you can ﬁnd a lot of examples of these three kinds of social struggles, either isolated from each other or mixed together. But even when they are mixed, one of them, most of the time, prevails. For instance, in the feudal societies, the struggles against the forms of ethnic or social domination were prevalent, even though economic exploitation could have been very important among the revolt’s causes. In the nineteenth century, the struggle against exploitation came into the foreground. And nowadays, the struggle against the forms of subjection —against the submission of subjectivity —is becoming more and more important, even though the struggles against forms of domination and exploitation have not disappeared. Quite the contrary. I suspect that it is not the ﬁrst time that our society has been confronted with this kind of struggle. All those movements which took place in the ﬁfteenth and sixteenth centuries and which had the Reformation as their main expression and result should be analyzed as a great crisis of the Western experience of subjectivity and a revolt against the kind of religious and moral power which gave form, during the Middle Ages, to this subjectivity. The need to take a direct part in spiritual life, in the work of salvation, in the truth which lies in the Book —all that was a struggle for a new subjectivity. I know what objections can be made. We can say that all types of subjection are derived phenomena, that they are merely the consequences of other economic and social processes: forces of production, class struggle, and ideological structures which determine the form of subjectivity. It is certain that the mechanisms of subjection cannot be studied outside their relation to the mechanisms of exploitation and domination. But they do not merely constitute the “ terminal” of more fundamental mechanisms. They entertain complex and circular relations with other forms. The reason this kind of struggle tends to prevail in our society is due to the fact that, since the sixteenth century, a new political form of power has been continuously developing. This new political structure, as everybody knows, is the state. But most of the time, the state is envisioned as a kind of political power which ignores individuals, looking only at the interests of the totality or, I should say, of a class or a group among the citizens. That’s quite true. But I’d like to underline the fact that the state’s power (and that’s one of the reasons for its strength) is both an individualizing and a totalizing form of power. Never, I think, in the history of human societies —even in the old Chinese society— has there been such a tricky combination in the same political structures of individualization techniques and of totalization procedures. This is due to the fact that the modern Western state has integrated in a new political shape an old power technique which originated in Christian institutions. We can call this power technique the pastoral power. First of all, a few words about this pastoral power. It has often been said that Christianity brought into being a code of ethics fundamentally different from that of the ancient world. Less emphasis is usually placed on the fact that it proposed and spread new power relations throughout the ancient world. Christianity is the only religion which has organized itself as a church. And as such, it postulates in principle that certain individuals can, by their religious quality, serve others not as princes, magistrates, prophets, fortune-tellers, benefactors, educationalists, and so on but as pastors. However, this word designates a very special form of power.

It is a form of power whose ultimate aim is to assure individual salvation in the next world.
Pastoral power is not merely a form of power which commands; it must also be prepared to sacriﬁce itself for the life and salvation of the ﬂock. Therefore, it is different from royal power, which demands a sacriﬁce from its subjects to save the throne.
It is a form of power which does not look after just the whole community but each individual in particular, during his entire life.
Finally, this form of power cannot be exercised without knowing the inside of people’s minds, without exploring their souls, without making them reveal their innermost secrets. It implies a knowledge of the conscience and an ability to direct it.

This form of power is salvation oriented (as opposed to political power). It is oblative (as opposed to the principle of sovereignty); it is individualizing (as opposed to legal power); it is coextensive and continuous with life; it is linked with a production of truth —the truth of the individual himself. But all this is part of history, you will say; the pastorate has, if not disappeared, at least lost the main part of its efﬁciency. This is true, but I think we should distinguish between two aspects of pastoral power —between the ecclesiastical institutionalization, which has ceased or at least lost its vitality since the eighteenth century, and its function, which has spread and multiplied outside the ecclesiastical institution. An important phenomenon took place around the eighteenth century —it was a new distribution, a new organization of this kind of individualizing power. I don’t think that we should consider the “ modern state” as an entity which was developed above individuals, ignoring what they are and even their very existence, but, on the contrary, as a very sophisticated structure, in which individuals can be integrated, under one condition: that this individuality would be shaped in a new form and submitted to a set of very speciﬁc patterns. In a way, we can see the state as a modern matrix of individualization or a new form of pastoral power. A few more words about this new pastoral power.

We may observe a change in its objective. It was no longer a question of leading people to their salvation in the next world but rather ensuring it in this world. And in this context, the word “ salvation” takes on different meanings: health, well-being (that is, sufﬁcient wealth, standard of living), security, protection against accidents. A series of “ worldly” aims took the place of the religious aims of the traditional pastorate, all the more easily because the latter, for various reasons, had followed in an accessory way a certain number of these aims; we only have to think of the role of medicine and its welfare function assured for a long time by the Catholic and Protestant churches.
Concurrently the ofﬁcials of pastoral power increased. Sometimes this form of power was exerted by state apparatus or, in any case, by a public institution such as the police. (We should not forget that in the eighteenth century the police force was not invented only for maintaining law and order, nor for assisting governments in their struggle against their enemies, but for assuring urban supplies, hygiene, health, and standards considered necessary for handicrafts and commerce.) Sometimes the power was exercised by private ventures, welfare societies, benefactors, and generally by philanthropists. But ancient institutions, for example the family, were also mobilized at this time to take on pastoral functions. It was also exercised by complex structures such as medicine, which included private initiatives with the sale of services on market economy principles, but which also included public institutions such as hospitals.
Finally, the multiplication of the aims and agents of pastoral power focused the development of knowledge of man around two roles: one, globalizing and quantitative, concerning the population; the other, analytical, concerning the individual.

And this implies that power of a pastoral type, which over centuries —for more than a millennium— had been linked to a deﬁned religious institution, suddenly spread out into the whole social body; it found support in a multitude of institutions. And, instead of a pastoral power and a political power, more or less linked to each other, more or less rival, there was an individualizing “ tactic” which characterized a series of powers: those of the family, medicine, psychiatry, education, and employers.

At the end of the eighteenth century, Kant wrote, in a German newspaper —the Berliner Monatschrift — a short text. The title was “ Was heisst Aufklärung?” It was for a long time, and it is still, considered a work of relatively small importance. But I can’t help ﬁnding it very interesting and puzzling because it was the ﬁrst time a philosopher proposed as a philosophical task to investigate not only the metaphysical system or the foundations of scientiﬁc knowledge but a historical event —a recent, even a contemporary event. When in 1784 Kant asked, “ Was heisst Aufklärung?”, he meant, What’s going on just now? What’s happening to us? What is this world, this period, this precise moment in which we are living? Or in other words: What are we? as Aufklärer, as part of the Enlightenment? Compare this with the Cartesian question: Who am I? I, as a unique but universal and unhistorical subject? I, for Descartes, is everyone, anywhere at any moment. But Kant asks something else: What are we? in a very precise moment of history. Kant’s question appears as an analysis of both us and our present. I think that this aspect of philosophy took on more and more importance. Hegel, Nietzsche… The other aspect of “ universal philosophy” didn’t disappear. But the task of philosophy as a critical analysis of our world is something which is more and more important. Maybe the most certain of all philosophical problems is the problem of the present time and of what we are in this very moment. Maybe the target nowadays is not to discover what we are but to refuse what we are. We have to imagine and to build up what we could be to get rid of this kind of political “ double bind,” which is the simultaneous individualization and totalization of modern power structures. The conclusion would be that the political, ethical, social, philosophical problem of our days is not to try to liberate the individual from the state and from the state’s institutions but to liberate us both from the state and from the type of individualization which is linked to the state. We have to promote new forms of subjectivity through the refusal of this kind of individuality which has been imposed on us for several centuries.

How Is Power Exercised?

For some people, asking questions about the “ how” of power would limit them to describing its effects without ever relating those effects either to causes or to a basic nature. It would make this power a mysterious substance which they might hesitate to interrogate in itself, no doubt because they would prefer not to call it into question. By proceeding this way, which is never explicitly justiﬁed, they seem to suspect the presence of a kind of fatalism. But does not their very distrust indicate a presupposition that power is something which exists with three distinct qualities: its origin, its basic nature, and its manifestations? If, for the time being, I grant a certain privileged position to the question of “ how,” it is not because I would wish to eliminate the questions of “ what” and “ why.” Rather, it is that I wish to present these questions in a different way: better still, to know if it is legitimate to imagine a power which unites in itself a what, a why, and a how. To put it bluntly, I would say that to begin the analysis with a “ how” is to suggest that power as such does not exist. At the very least it is to ask oneself what contents one has in mind when using this all-embracing and reifying term; it is to suspect that an extremely complex conﬁguration of realities is allowed to escape when one treads endlessly in the double question: What is power? and Where does power come from? The little question, What happens?, although ﬂat and empirical, once scrutinized is seen to avoid accusing a metaphysics or an ontology of power of being fraudulent; rather, it attempts a critical investigation into the thematics of power.

1. “ How” not in the sense of “ How does it manifest itself?” but “ By what means is it exercised?” and “ What happens when individuals exert (as they say) power over others?”

As far as this power is concerned, it is ﬁrst necessary to distinguish that which is exerted over things and gives the ability to modify, use, consume, or destroy them —a power which stems from aptitudes directly inherent in the body or relayed by external instruments. Let us say that here it is a question of “ capacity.” On the other hand, what characterizes the power we are analyzing is that it brings into play relations between individuals (or between groups). For let us not deceive ourselves; if we speak of the structures or the mechanisms of power, it is only insofar as we suppose that certain persons exercise power over others. The term “ power” designates relationships between partners (and by that I am not thinking of a zero-sum game but simply, and for the moment staying in the most general terms, of an ensemble of actions which induce others and follow from one another). It is necessary also to distinguish power relations from relationships of communication which transmit information by means of a language, a system of signs, or any other symbolic medium. No doubt communicating is always a certain way of acting upon another person or persons. But the production and circulation of elements of meaning can have as their objective or as their consequence certain results in the realm of power; the latter are not simply an aspect of the former. Whether or not they pass through systems of communication, power relations have a speciﬁc nature. Power relations, relationships of communication, and objective capacities should not therefore be confused. This is not to say that there is a question of three separate domains. Nor that there is on one hand the held of things, of perfected technique, work, and the transformation of the real; on the other that of signs, communication, reciprocity, and the production of meaning; and ﬁnally, that of the domination of the means of constraint, of inequality, and the action of men upon other men. It is a question of three types of relationships which in fact always overlap one another, support one another reciprocally, and use each other mutually as means to an end. The application of objective capacities in their most elementary forms implies relationships of communication (whether in the form of previously acquired information or of shared work); it is tied also to power relations (whether they consist of obligatory tasks, of gestures imposed by tradition or apprenticeship, of subdivisions and the more or less obligatory distribution of labor). Relationships of communication imply ﬁnalized activities (even if only the correct putting into operation of elements of meaning) and, by virtue of modifying the held of information between partners, produce effects of power. They can scarcely be dissociated from activities brought to their ﬁnal term, be they those which permit the exercise of this power (such as training techniques, processes of domination, the means by which obedience is obtained) or those, which in order to develop their potential, call upon relations of power (the division of labor and the hierarchy of tasks). Of course, the coordination between these three types of relationships is neither uniform nor constant. In a given society there is no general type of equilibrium between ﬁnalized activities, systems of communication, and power relations. Rather, there are diverse forms, diverse places, diverse circumstances or occasions in which these inter-relationships establish themselves according to a speciﬁc model. But there are also “ blocks” in which the adjustment of abilities, the resources of communication, and power relations constitute regulated and concerted systems. Take, for example, an educational institution: the disposal of its space, the meticulous regulations which govern its internal life, the different activities which are organized there, the diverse persons who live there or meet one another, each with his own function, his well-deﬁned character —all these things constitute a block of capacity-communication-power. The activity which ensures apprenticeship and the acquisition of aptitudes or types of behavior is developed there by means of a whole ensemble of regulated communications (lessons, questions and answers, orders, exhortations, coded signs of obedience, differentiation marks of the “ value” of each person and of the levels of knowledge) and by the means of a whole series of power processes (enclosure, surveillance, reward and punishment, the pyramidal hierarchy). These blocks, in which the putting into operation of technical capacities, the game of communications, and the relationships of power are adjusted to one another according to considered formulae, constitute what one might call, enlarging a little the sense of the word, “ disciplines.” The empirical analysis of certain disciplines as they have been historically constituted presents for this very reason a certain interest. This is so because the disciplines show, ﬁrst, according to artiﬁcially clear and decanted systems, the manner in which systems of objective ﬁnality and systems of communication and power can be welded together. They also display different models of articulation, sometimes giving preeminence to power relations and obedience (as in those disciplines of a monastic or penitential type), sometimes to ﬁnalize activities (as in the disciplines of workshops or hospitals), sometimes to relationships of communication (as in the disciplines of apprenticeship), sometimes also to a saturation of the three types of relationship (as perhaps in military discipline, where a plethora of signs indicates, to the point of redundancy, tightly knit power relations calculated with care to produce a certain number of technical effects). What is to be understood by the disciplining of societies in Europe since the eighteenth century is not, of course, that the individuals who are part of them become more and more obedient, nor that they set about assembling in barracks, schools, or prisons; rather, that an increasingly better invigilated process of adjustment has been sought after —more and more rational and economic —between productive activities, resources of communication, and the play of power relations. To approach the theme of power by an analysis of “ how” is therefore to introduce several critical shifts in relation to the supposition of a fundamental power. It is to give oneself as the object of analysis power relations and not power itself —power relations which are distinct from objective abilities as well as from relations of communication. This is as much as saying that power relations can be grasped in the diversity of their logical sequence, their abilities, and their interrelationships.

2. What constitutes the speciﬁc nature of power?

The exercise of power is not simply a relationship between partners, individual or collective; it is a way in which certain actions modify others. Which is to say, of course, that something called Power, with or without a capital letter, which is assumed to exist universally in a concentrated or diffused form, does not exist. Power exists only when it is put into action, even if, of course, it is integrated into a disparate ﬁeld of possibilities brought to bear upon permanent structures. This also means that power is not a function of consent. In itself it is not a renunciation of freedom, a transference of rights, the power of each and all delegated to a few (which does not prevent the possibility that consent may be a condition for the existence or the maintenance of power); the relationship of power can be the result of a prior or permanent consent, but it is not by nature the manifestation of a consensus. Is this to say that one must seek the character proper to power relations in the violence which must have been its primitive form, its permanent secret, and its last resource, that which in the ﬁnal analysis appears as its real nature when it is forced to throw aside its mask and to show itself as it really is? In effect, what deﬁnes a relationship of power is that it is a mode of action which does not act directly and immediately on others. Instead, it acts upon their actions: an action upon an action, on existing actions or on those which may arise in the present or the future. A relationship of violence acts upon a body or upon things; it forces, it bends, it breaks on the wheel, it destroys, or it closes the door on all possibilities. Its opposite pole can only be passivity, and if it comes up against any resistance, it has no other option but to try to minimize it. On the other hand, a power relationship can only be articulated on the basis of two elements which are each indispensable if it is really to be a power relationship: that “ the other” (the one over whom power is exercised) be thoroughly recognized and maintained to the very end as a person who acts; and that, faced with a relationship of power, a whole held of responses, reactions, results, and possible inventions may open up. Obviously the bringing into play of power relations does not exclude the use of violence any more than it does the obtaining of consent; no doubt the exercise of power can never do without one or the other, often both at the same time. But even though consensus and violence are the instruments or the results, they do not constitute the principle or the basic nature of power. The exercise of power can produce as much acceptance as may be wished for: it can pile up the dead and shelter itself behind whatever threats it can imagine. In itself the exercise of power is not violence; nor is it a consent which, implicitly, is renewable. It is a total structure of actions brought to bear upon possible actions; it incites, it induces, it seduces, it makes easier or more difﬁcult; in the extreme it constrains or forbids absolutely; it is nevertheless always a way of acting upon an acting subject or acting subjects by virtue of their acting or being capable of action. A set of actions upon other actions. Perhaps the equivocal nature of the term “ conduct” is one of the best aids for coming to terms with the speciﬁcity of power relations. For to “ conduct” is at the same time to “ lead” others (according to mechanisms of coercion which are, to varying degrees, strict) and a way of behaving within a more or less open held of possibilities. The exercise of power consists in guiding the possibility of conduct and putting in order the possible outcome. Basically power is less a confrontation between two adversaries or the linking of one to the other than a question of government. This word must be allowed the very broad meaning which it had in the sixteenth century. “ Government” did not refer only to political structures or to the management of states; rather, it designated the way in which the conduct of individuals or of groups might be directed: the government of children, of souls, of communities, of families, of the sick. It did not only cover the legitimately constituted forms of political or economic subjection but also modes of action, more or less considered or calculated, which were destined to act upon the possibilities of action of other people. To govern, in this sense, is to structure the possible held of action of others. The relationship proper to power would not, therefore, be sought on the side of violence or of struggle, nor on that of voluntary linking (all of which can, at best, only be the instruments of power), but rather in the area of the singular mode of action, neither warlike nor juridical, which is government. When one deﬁnes the exercise of power as a mode of action upon the actions of others, when one characterizes these actions by the government of men by other men —in the broadest sense of the term— includes an important element: freedom. Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a held of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse comportments, may be realized. Where the determining factors saturate the whole, there is no relationship of power; slavery is not a power relationship when man is in chains. (In this case it is a question of a physical relationship of constraint.) Consequently, there is no face-to-face confrontation of power and freedom, which are mutually exclusive (freedom disappears everywhere power is exercised), but a much more complicated interplay. In this game freedom may well appear as the condition for the exercise of power (at the same time its precondition, since freedom must exist for power to be exerted, and also its permanent support, since without the possibility of recalcitrance, power would be equivalent to a physical determination). The relationship between power and freedom’s refusal to submit cannot, therefore, be separated. The crucial problem of power is not that of voluntary servitude (how could we seek to be slaves?). At the very heart of the power relationship, and constantly provoking it, are the recalcitrance of the will and the intransigence of freedom. Rather than speaking of an essential freedom, it would be better to speak of an “ agonism” of a relationship which is at the same time reciprocal incitation and struggle, less of a face-to-face confrontation which paralyzes both sides than a permanent provocation.

How is one to analyze the power relationship?

One can analyze such relationships, or rather I should say that it is perfectly legitimate to do so, by focusing on carefully deﬁned institutions. The latter constitute a privileged point of observation, diversiﬁed, concentrated, put in order, and carried through to the highest point of their efﬁcacity. It is here that, as a ﬁrst approximation, one might expect to see the appearance of the form and logic of their elementary mechanisms. However, the analysis of power relations as one ﬁnds them in certain circumscribed institutions presents a certain number of problems. First, the fact that an important part of the mechanisms put into operation by an institution are designed to ensure its own preservation brings with it the risk of deciphering functions which are essentially reproductive, especially in power relations between institutions. Second, in analyzing power relations from the standpoint of institutions, one lays oneself open to seeking the explanation and the origin of the former in the latter , that is to say, ﬁnally, to explain power to power. Finally, insofar as institutions act essentially by bringing into play two elements, explicit or tacit regulations and an apparatus, one risks giving to one or the other an exaggerated privilege in the relations of power and hence to see in the latter only modulations of the law and of coercion. This does not deny the importance of institutions on the establishment of power relations. Instead, I wish to suggest that one must analyze institutions from the standpoint of power relations, rather than vice versa, and that the fundamental point of anchorage of the relationships, even if they are embodied and crystallized in an institution, is to be found outside the institution. Let us come back to the deﬁnition of the exercise of power as a way in which certain actions may structure the held of other possible actions. What, therefore, would be proper to a relationship of power is that it be a mode of action upon actions. That is to say, power relations are rooted deep in the social nexus, not reconstituted “ above” society as a supplementary structure whose radical effacement one could perhaps dream of. In any case, to live in society is to live in such a way that action upon other actions is possible —and in fact ongoing. A society without power relations can only be an abstraction. Which, be it said in passing, makes all the more politically necessary the analysis of power relations in a given society, their historical formation, the source of their strength or fragility, the conditions which are necessary to transform some or to abolish others. For to say that there cannot be a society without power relations is not to say either that those which are established are necessary or, in any case, that power constitutes a fatality at the heart of societies, such that it cannot be undermined. Instead, I would say that the analysis, elaboration, and bringing into question of power relations and the “ agonism” between power relations and the intransitivity of freedom is a permanent political task inherent in all social existence. The analysis of power relations demands that a certain number of points be established concretely:

The system of differentiations which permits one to act upon the actions of others: differentiations determined by the law or by traditions of status and privilege; economic differences in the appropriation of riches and goods, shifts in the processes of production, linguistic or cultural differences, differences in know-how and competence, and so forth. Every relationship of power puts into operation differentiations which are at the same time its conditions and its results.
The types of objectives pursued by those who act upon the actions of others: the maintenance of privileges, the accumulation of proﬁts, the bringing into operation of statutary authority, the exercise of a function or of a trade.
The means of bringing power relations into being : according to whether power is exercised by the threat of arms, by the effects of the word, by means of economic disparities, by more or less complex means of control, by systems of surveillance, with or without archives, according to rules which are or are not explicit, ﬁxed or modiﬁable, with or without the technological means to put all these things into action.
Forms of institutionalization: these may mix traditional predispositions, legal structures, phenomena relating to custom or to fashion (such as one sees in the institution of the family); they can also take the form of an apparatus closed in upon itself, with its speciﬁc loci , its own regulations, its hierarchical structures which are carefully deﬁned, a relative autonomy in its functioning (such as scholastic or military institutions); they can also form very complex systems endowed with multiple apparatuses, as in the case of the state, whose function is the taking of everything under its wing, the bringing into being of general surveillance, the principle of regulation, and, to a certain extent also, the distribution of all power relations in a given social ensemble.
The degrees of rationalization : the bringing into play of power relations as action in a held of possibilities may be more or less elaborate in relation to the effectiveness of the instruments and the certainty of the results (greater or lesser technological reﬁnements employed in the exercise of power) or again in proportion to the possible cost (be it the economic cost of the means brought into operation or the cost in terms of reaction constituted by the resistance which is encountered). The exercise of power is not a naked fact, an institutional right, nor is it a structure which holds out or is smashed: it is elaborated, transformed, organized; it endows itself with processes which are more or less adjusted to the situation.

One sees why the analysis of power relations within a society cannot be reduced to the study of a series of institutions, not even to the study of all those institutions which would merit the name “ political.” Power relations are rooted in the system of social networks. This is not to say, however, that there is a primary and fundamental principle of power which dominates society down to the smallest detail; but, taking as point of departure the possibility of action upon the action of others (which is coextensive with every social relationship), multiple forms of individual disparity, of objectives, of the given application of power over ourselves or others, of, in varying degrees, partial or universal institutionalization, of more or less deliberate organization, one can deﬁne different forms of power. The forms and the speciﬁc situations of the government of men by one another in a given society are multiple; they are superimposed, they cross, impose their own limits, sometimes cancel one another out, sometimes reinforce one another. It is certain that in contemporary societies the state is not simply one of the forms or speciﬁc situations of the exercise of power —even if it is the most important— but that in a certain way all other forms of power relation must refer to it. But this is not because they are derived from it; it is rather because power relations have come more and more under state control (although this state control has not taken the same form in pedagogical, judicial, economic, or family systems). In referring here to the restricted sense of the word “ government,” one could say that power relations have been progressively governmentalized, that is to say, elaborated, rationalized, and centralized in the form of, or under the auspices of, state institutions.

Relations of power and relations of strategy.

The word “ strategy” is currently employed in three ways. First, to designate the means employed to attain a certain end; it is a question of rationality functioning to arrive at an objective. Second, to designate the manner in which a partner in a certain game acts with regard to what he thinks should be the action of the others and what he considers the others think to be his own; it is the way in which one seeks to have the advantage over others. Third, to designate the procedures used in a situation of confrontation to deprive the opponent of his means of combat and to reduce him to giving up the struggle; it is a question, therefore, of the means destined to obtain victory. These three meanings come together in situations of confrontation —war or games— where the objective is to act upon an adversary in such a manner as to render the struggle impossible for him. So strategy is deﬁned by the choice of winning solutions. But it must be borne in mind that this is a very special type of situation and that there are others in which the distinctions between the different senses of the word “ strategy’~ must be maintained. Referring to the ﬁrst sense I have indicated, one may call power strategy the totality of the means put into operation to implement power effectively or to maintain it. One may also speak of a strategy proper to power relations insofar as they constitute modes of action upon possible action, the action of others. One can therefore interpret the mechanisms brought into play in power relations in terms of strategies. But most important is obviously the relationship between power relations and confrontation strategies. For, if it is true that at the heart of power relations and as a permanent condition of their existence there is an insubordination and a certain essential obstinacy on the part of the principles of freedom, then there is no relationship of power without the means of escape or possible ﬂight. Every power relationship implies, at !east in potentia , a strategy of struggle, in which the two forces are not super-imposed, do not lose their speciﬁc nature, or do not ﬁnally become confused. Each constitutes for the other a kind of permanent limit, a point of possible reversal. A relationship of confrontation reaches its term, its ﬁnal moment (and the victory of one of the two adversaries), when stable mechanisms replace the free play of antagonistic reactions. Through such mechanisms one can direct, in a fairly constant manner and with reasonable certainty, the conduct of others. For a relationship of confrontation, from the moment it is not a struggle to the death, the ﬁxing of a power relationship becomes a target —at one and the same time its fulﬁllment and its suspension. And in return, the strategy of struggle also constitutes a frontier for the relationship of power, the line at which, instead of manipulating and inducing actions in a calculated manner, one must be content with reacting to them after the event. It would not be possible for power relations to exist without points of insubordination which, by deﬁnition, are means of escape. Accordingly, every intensiﬁcation, every extension of power relations to make the insubordinate submit can only result in the limits of power. The latter reaches its ﬁnal term either in a type of action which reduces the other to total impotence (in which case victory over the adversary replaces the exercise of power) or by a confrontation with those whom one governs and their transformation into adversaries. Which is to say that every strategy of confrontation dreams of becoming a relationship of power, and every relationship of power leans toward the idea that, if it follows its own line of development and comes up against direct confrontation, it may become the winning strategy. In effect, between a relationship of power and a strategy of struggle there is a reciprocal appeal, a perpetual linking and a perpetual reversal. At every moment the relationship of power may become a confrontation between two adversaries. Equally, the relationship between adversaries in society may, at every moment, give place to the putting into operation of mechanisms of power. The consequence of this instability is the ability to decipher the same events and the same transformations either from inside the history of struggle or from the standpoint of the power relationships. The interpretations which result will not consist of the same elements of meaning or the same links or the same types of intelligibility, although they refer to the same historical fabric, and each of the two analyses must have reference to the other. In fact, it is precisely the disparities between the two readings which make visible those fundamental phenomena of “ domination” which are present in a large number of human societies. Domination is in fact a general structure of power whose ramiﬁcations and consequences can sometimes be found descending to the most recalcitrant ﬁbers of society. But at the same time it is a strategic situation more or less taken for granted and consolidated by means of a long-term confrontation between adversaries. It can certainly happen that the fact of domination may only be the transcription of a mechanism of power resulting from confrontation and its consequences (a political structure stemming from invasion); it may also be that a relationship of struggle between two adversaries is the result of power relations with the conﬂicts and cleavages which ensue. But what makes the domination of a group, a caste, or a class, together with the resistance and revolts which that domination comes up against, a central phenomenon in the history of societies is that they manifest in a massive and universalizing form, at the level of the whole social body, the locking together of power relations with relations of strategy and the results proceeding from their interaction.

Purchase from Amazon : “ The Subject and Power”

Essay On Knowledge Is Power

Table of Contents

Short Essay On Knowledge Is Power

The saying “knowledge is power” is a timeless and powerful statement that holds true even in today’s fast-paced and rapidly evolving world. Knowledge refers to the information and skills acquired through education, experience, and research. It is the foundation upon which individuals can build their understanding of the world and make informed decisions.

The possession of knowledge empowers individuals to tackle complex problems and overcome challenges in their personal and professional lives. With knowledge, individuals can expand their horizons and explore new opportunities, allowing them to grow and develop their potential. Moreover, knowledge provides individuals with the tools they need to navigate a rapidly changing world and make informed choices about their future.

In addition, knowledge is a key factor in driving progress and development. With advances in technology and science, the pace of change has accelerated, making it more important than ever for individuals to continuously seek new knowledge and skills. By acquiring knowledge, individuals can contribute to their communities and make a positive impact on the world around them.

In conclusion, the saying “knowledge is power” holds great significance in today’s world. By acquiring knowledge, individuals can empower themselves to make informed decisions, expand their horizons, and contribute to society’s progress and development. It is therefore essential to continuously seek knowledge and invest in our own personal and professional growth.

Long Essay On Knowledge Is Power

Knowledge is a powerful tool that can give us the power to achieve anything we desire. From gaining a better understanding of the world around us to unlocking our full potential, knowledge can open doors that otherwise may remain closed. In this essay, we will explore the impact of knowledge on our lives and what it means to be truly empowered by knowledge.

Introduction: Defining the Topic and Exploring Its Significance

In order to write an essay on knowledge is power, it is first necessary to understand the concept of power. Power can be defined as the ability to influence or control the behavior of others. In this context, then, knowledge can be seen as a form of power. It is the ability to use information in order to influence or control the behavior of others.

The concept of knowledge is power is not new. It has been around for centuries. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato wrote about it in his work The Republic. In that work, he argued that those who have knowledge are better able to rule than those who do not.

The idea that knowledge is power has been taken up by many different people over the years. For example, the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche argued thatknowledge was a form of power that could be used to control others.

More recently, the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama has written about the importance of knowledge in his book The Origins of Political Order. In that work, he argues that societies with more knowledgeable citizens are better able to develop and maintain stable democracies.

So, what does all this mean for our essay on knowledge is power? Well, it means that we need to think carefully about what we mean by power and how it can be used in relation to knowledge. We also need to consider how different people have understood and used the concept throughout history.

Understanding the Meaning of Knowledge

Knowledge is power because it gives us the ability to make informed decisions, solve problems and attain our goals. It helps us understand our world and how we fit into it. It allows us to find new opportunities and navigate our way through life.

Most importantly, knowledge is power because it gives us the ability to make choices. It gives us the ability to control our own destiny. We can choose what we want to do with our lives, where we want to go and what we want to achieve. We can set our own goals and pursue them with confidence.

Knowledge is also power because it helps us solve problems. When we encounter a problem, we can use our knowledge to find a solution. We can identify the root causes of problems and devise strategies to overcome them. Knowledge also allows us to prevent problems from occurring in the first place.

In addition, knowledge is power because it enables us to attain our goals. By acquiring knowledge, we can develop the skills and abilities needed to succeed in whatever field we choose to pursue. We can also gain access to resources that can help us achieve our objectives.

Ultimately, knowledge is power because it gives us the ability to improve our lives and the lives of those around us. It allows us to create a better future for ourselves and for humanity as a whole .

Forms of Knowledge

There are many forms of knowledge. Some are more useful than others. Here are some of the most common:

1. experiential knowledge – This is the kind of knowledge that you gain from personal experience. It’s often more reliable than other forms of knowledge because you can trust your own memory and observations.

2. logical reasoning – This is the kind of knowledge that you gain by using your reason to draw conclusions from premises. For example, if you know that all men are mortal, and you know that Socrates is a man, then you can logically conclude that Socrates is mortal.

3. scientific knowledge – This is the kind of knowledge that comes from careful observation and experimentation. It’s considered to be very reliable because it’s based on hard evidence.

4. intuitive knowledge – This is the kind of knowledge that comes from your gut feeling or intuition. It’s often more reliable than other forms of knowledge because it’s based on your personal understanding of a situation.

5. ancestral knowledge – This is the kind ofknowledge that has been passed down through generations in your family or community. It’s often more reliable than other forms of knowledge because it’s based on long-term experience and observation .

Power of Knowledge

In order to succeed in life, it is essential to have knowledge. It is the key to unlocking doors of opportunity and opening up a world of possibilities. With knowledge, you have the power to make informed decisions, solve problems and achieve your goals.

Knowledge is power because it gives you the ability to think critically and make sound decisions. It helps you see things from different perspectives and find new solutions to problems. With knowledge, you are better equipped to deal with challenges and take advantage of opportunities.

Knowledge is also empowering because it gives you confidence. When you know what you’re doing, you feel more confident and capable. This can lead to greater success in all areas of your life.

So if you want to achieve your full potential, start acquiring knowledge today. It really is the key to a better life.

Impact of Knowledge on our Lives

Knowledge is power. This is an age-old saying that has been said by many wise people over the years. And it is true. Knowledge really is power. It gives us the ability to do things, to make things happen.

Without knowledge, we would be lost. We would not know how to do anything. We would not know how to make anything happen. We would be like children, wandering around in the dark, bumping into things and not knowing what to do.

But with knowledge, we can light up the darkness and find our way. We can learn how to do things and then put that knowledge into practice. We can make things happen.

So, yes, knowledge really is power. And it is something that we should all strive to acquire as much of as possible because it can truly change our lives for the better.

How to acquire knowledge?

There are a few ways to acquire knowledge. The most common way is through education, whether it is formal or informal. People can also gain knowledge through experience, such as trial and error, or by observing others. Additionally, people can read books or articles to learn new things, or listen to podcasts or watch videos on the internet. Research is another great way to acquire knowledge. By doing research, you can learn about a particular topic in depth and gain a better understanding of it. Additionally, people can ask questions and talk to experts in their field to gain new insights. Lastly, networking with other knowledgeable individuals can help people gain more knowledge.

Benefits of Acquiring Knowledge

There are many benefits to acquiring knowledge. Perhaps the most obvious benefit is that it can help you make better decisions in life. It can also give you a competitive edge in your career and make you more marketable to employers. Additionally, knowledge can help you understand the world around you and make you more informed about current events. Finally, knowledge is simply empowering and can give you a sense of satisfaction and self-worth.

Conclusion: Summarizing the Arguments

The essay began by discussing the various forms knowledge can take, from empirical to tacit. It then went on to explore the ways in which knowledge can be used as a form of power. The essay concluded by summarizing the arguments that have been made throughout.

First and foremost, it is important to remember that knowledge comes in many different forms. Empirical knowledge is perhaps the most obvious and easily recognizable form of knowledge, but there are others, such as tacit knowledge, which are just as important. Each type of knowledge has its own strengths and weaknesses, and each can be used as a form of power in its own way.

That being said, it is also important to remember that knowledge is not always a good thing. Just because someone has a lot of knowledge does not necessarily mean that they will use it for good. Knowledge can be used for evil just as easily as it can be used for good. It all depends on the person wielding the power.

Manisha Dubey Jha is a skilled educational content writer with 5 years of experience. Specializing in essays and paragraphs, she’s dedicated to crafting engaging and informative content that enriches learning experiences.

Essay on importance of yoga, essay on cow, climate change essay, essay on slaver, leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essay on Knowledge is Power

Students are often asked to write an essay on Knowledge is Power in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Knowledge is Power

Understanding the power of knowledge.

Knowledge is a powerful tool that can change our lives. It’s more than just facts; it’s a unique understanding of the world around us. With knowledge, we can make informed decisions, solve problems, and contribute to society.

The Role of Education

Education is the key to gaining knowledge. It opens doors to new ideas, perspectives, and opportunities. It’s through education that we learn about different subjects and develop skills.

Knowledge and Empowerment

Knowledge empowers us. It gives us the confidence to face challenges, the ability to make a difference, and the power to shape our future.

Also check:

250 Words Essay on Knowledge is Power

Introduction.

The proverb “Knowledge is Power” is a timeless axiom that emphasizes the importance of knowledge in life. This potent phrase was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, an influential philosopher and statesman, who understood the fundamental role of knowledge in shaping human destiny.

The Power of Knowledge

Knowledge bestows power by enabling individuals to make informed decisions, solve problems, and innovate. It’s a catalyst for social mobility, bridging gaps between different societal classes. The more knowledge a person possesses, the more they understand the world around them and their place within it.

Knowledge as a Tool of Empowerment

Knowledge is not just about acquiring information; it’s about understanding and applying that information effectively. It is a tool of empowerment, allowing us to challenge unjust systems, question prevailing norms, and shape a more equitable society. In essence, knowledge is the fuel that drives social change and progress.

Knowledge in the Digital Age

In the digital age, the value of knowledge has increased exponentially. With the internet acting as a global repository of information, the power of knowledge has become more accessible. However, it is the ability to critically analyze and apply this information that truly empowers individuals and societies.

In conclusion, knowledge is indeed power. It is an indispensable tool that influences our decisions, shapes our perspectives, and governs our actions. As we navigate through the complexities of the 21st century, let us remember that the power of knowledge is not in its possession but in its application.

500 Words Essay on Knowledge is Power

The phrase “Knowledge is Power” is a well-known adage that signifies the importance of knowledge in life. It is attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, an English philosopher and statesman, who penned it in his 1597 work, “Meditationes Sacrae.” The concept behind this statement is that knowledge equips us with the power to influence, to change, and to better ourselves and the world around us.

Knowledge is a potent tool that enables us to comprehend the complexities of the world. It is a catalyst that propels us forward, fostering our growth and development. It is not merely an accumulation of facts, but a tool that allows us to understand, analyze, and interpret information. It is through knowledge that we can discern truth from falsehood, make informed decisions, and shape our destiny.

Knowledge and Society

In the context of society, knowledge is a driving force that fuels progress. It is the bedrock of innovation, scientific discoveries, and technological advancements. It empowers societies to transcend boundaries, overcome challenges, and create solutions that enhance the quality of life. It is through knowledge that we have been able to harness the power of nature, cure diseases, and reach out to the stars.

Knowledge is a form of empowerment. It equips individuals with the ability to think critically, question, and challenge the status quo. It empowers individuals to break free from the shackles of ignorance, prejudice, and superstition. It fosters self-reliance and self-confidence, empowering individuals to shape their lives and contribute to society.

Knowledge and Ethics

While knowledge is a powerful tool, it is crucial to understand that power without ethics can lead to destructive consequences. Knowledge should be guided by a strong moral compass, ensuring that it is used for the betterment of humanity and not for its detriment. The ethical use of knowledge is what separates wisdom from mere intelligence.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

Essay on Knowledge is Power

Essay generator.

In the quest for empowerment and progress, the aphorism “Knowledge is Power” stands as a timeless beacon, illuminating the path towards enlightenment and advancement. This profound principle, attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, underscores the pivotal role of knowledge in empowering individuals and societies to achieve greatness. As we delve into the essence of this maxim, we uncover its multifaceted implications, spanning individual empowerment, societal progress, and the collective pursuit of wisdom.

The Foundation of Individual Empowerment

At the heart of personal development lies the acquisition of knowledge. It is the cornerstone upon which individuals build their abilities, shape their destinies, and navigate the complexities of life. Knowledge equips us with the tools to question, understand, and interact with the world around us, fostering a sense of confidence and autonomy.

Unleashing Potential Through Learning

The journey of learning is the key to unlocking our latent potential. It is through education that we gain insight into various disciplines, from the sciences that unravel the mysteries of the universe to the humanities that explore the depths of human experience. This enlightenment enables individuals to harness their innate abilities, transform their aspirations into reality, and contribute meaningfully to society.

Decision-Making and Problem-Solving

Armed with knowledge, individuals are better equipped to make informed decisions and tackle challenges with discernment. In an era inundated with information, the ability to analyze, synthesize, and apply knowledge is invaluable. It empowers people to navigate life’s uncertainties with confidence, making choices that are aligned with their values and aspirations.

Catalyzing Societal Progress

The power of knowledge extends beyond individual empowerment, acting as a catalyst for societal progress. In the annals of history, civilizations that prioritized learning and knowledge dissemination flourished, pioneering advancements that have shaped the modern world.

Innovation and Technological Advancement

The bedrock of innovation is knowledge. It is the fuel for the engine of technological progress, driving advancements that enhance the quality of life. From medical breakthroughs that extend life expectancy to technological innovations that connect the globe, knowledge has been the driving force behind humanity’s most significant achievements.

Social and Economic Development

Knowledge plays a crucial role in social and economic development. Educated societies are better equipped to tackle poverty, inequality, and injustice, paving the way for a more equitable world. Furthermore, knowledge-based economies, driven by information and technology, offer opportunities for growth, employment, and prosperity, underscoring the economic value of intellectual capital.

The Collective Pursuit of Wisdom

The maxim “Knowledge is Power” also speaks to the collective responsibility of pursuing wisdom and sharing it with future generations. It is a call to action for societies to invest in education, research, and the free flow of information.

The Role of Education

Education is the most potent tool for disseminating knowledge and fostering a culture of curiosity and lifelong learning. By providing access to quality education for all, societies can unlock the potential of their citizens, promote social mobility, and lay the foundation for sustained progress. The importance of critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability in education cannot be overstated, as these skills prepare individuals to thrive in an ever-changing world.

The Importance of Accessibility and Inclusivity

For knowledge to be truly powerful, it must be accessible and inclusive. This means breaking down barriers to education and information, ensuring that everyone, regardless of background, has the opportunity to learn and grow. The digital age offers unprecedented opportunities to democratize access to knowledge, yet it also poses challenges in terms of digital divides and information overload. Navigating these challenges is essential for realizing the full potential of knowledge as a force for good.

Fostering a Global Knowledge Society

In the interconnected world of the 21st century, the pursuit of knowledge transcends national boundaries. The global exchange of ideas, research, and innovations enriches our collective understanding and accelerates progress. Building a global knowledge society requires collaboration, openness, and a shared commitment to advancing the frontiers of knowledge for the betterment of humanity.

In conclusion, “Knowledge is Power” is not merely a statement of fact but a principle to live by. It encapsulates the transformative power of learning and the pivotal role of knowledge in personal empowerment, societal progress, and the collective pursuit of wisdom. As we navigate the challenges and opportunities of the modern world, let us embrace the pursuit of knowledge with zeal, recognizing its potential to shape our destinies and forge a brighter future for all. In the words of Sir Francis Bacon, “Knowledge itself is power.” Let us wield this power with responsibility, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to the betterment of society.

Text prompt

Instructive
Professional

Generate an essay on the importance of extracurricular activities for student development

Write an essay discussing the role of technology in modern education.

Knowledge Is Power Essay

Knowledge is power. It can change one’s life and how one views oneself. Besides, it gives us the ability to influence what people do and how they act. This means that knowledge helps positively shape society, which benefits everyone. Education is essential for kids and can aid them greatly. When they learn, they are more likely to do well in school and life. Education is also a vital factor for children’s future. It helps them with future career planning, financial security and social connections. BYJU’S knowledge is power essay is an eye-opener for kids to understand the significance of knowledge.

Importance of Knowledge

Benefits of Knowledge

Knowledge is an essential part of life. It provides us with opportunities like learning new things and understanding others. Knowledge can help us in our professional lives, which can sometimes be more difficult when we lack knowledge.

Knowledge comes in different forms; it can be the books we read, the speech we listen to, the informative videos we watch, etc.

Some people may think that knowing more is a disadvantage, but they are wrong. If you think about it, driving without knowing properly can be dangerous because you lack the skills required for safe driving. By increasing our knowledge, we can gain control over our life.

Potential of Knowledge

Knowledge is a powerful thing. It can enlighten, empower, and inspire people to do great things. The power of knowledge is seen through its ability to make us understand others and make positive choices for all of us.

The potential of knowledge is to know what one does not know yet. One can be in a situation where they are unsure about something and have questions about it, or it can be a problem where there is too much information, and it’s difficult to filter through. The possibility of knowledge allows people to think outside the box and make connections that others cannot.

The knowledge is power essay in English PDF explores how it can help people grow as a person and change society for good. BYJU’S essay on the topic knowledge is power is enlightening for the little ones. For more essays to improve kids’ learning experience, visit BYJU’S website.

Frequently Asked Questions on Knowledge is Power Essay

Why is knowledge essential.

Knowledge is necessary for the betterment of society and humanity’s progress in the world. It also enhances our life experience by enlightening, empowering, and inspiring people to do great things. The power of knowledge is seen through its ability to make us understand others and make positive choices for all of us.

What is the potential of knowledge?

The potential of knowledge is a term used to describe the idea that the more knowledge we gain, the more our potential increases. This concept can be applied to multiple subjects.

Why should kids refer to BYJU’S knowledge is power essay?

Kids must refer to BYJU’S knowledge is power essay because it helps them understand the importance and potential of knowledge. It also helps them to comprehend the structure and process of writing an essay.

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Civil Liberties — The Concept of Power: An Analysis of its Definition and Significance

The Concept of Power: an Analysis of Its Definition and Significance

Categories: Civil Liberties

About this sample

Words: 537 |

Published: Mar 8, 2024

Words: 537 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

The traditional definition of power, one alternative definition of power, a third definition of power.

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1290 words

3 pages / 1336 words

2 pages / 1081 words

2 pages / 789 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Civil Liberties

The issue of sedition bills during times of war has been a contentious and complex topic throughout history. The tension between national security and civil liberties has often led to the enactment of sedition bills aimed at [...]

Police cameras have become a widely debated topic in recent years, with proponents arguing that they enhance accountability and transparency within law enforcement, while opponents raise concerns about privacy issues and the [...]

Government overreach refers to the excessive involvement of the government in the lives of citizens, often infringing upon their rights and freedoms. While government intervention is necessary for maintaining order and providing [...]

The legality of stop-and-frisk practices remains a topic of significant controversy, with differing viewpoints among scholars, policymakers, and the general public. While stop-and-frisk practices have been upheld by the courts [...]

Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. (1982). Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. Civil Liberties Public Education Fund.Daniels, R. [...]

Civil liberties and civil rights are mechanical components that have influence on the way we live our lives. Each category can be applied in different situations, to identify different experiences for each individual. People in [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Essay on Knowledge is Power

500 Words Essay On Knowledge is Power

Knowledge is the most substantial element in the world. It can make or break your life alone. Moreover, knowledge is what differentiates humans from animals . With knowledge, one can utilize their skills and make their lives better. When you have knowledge at your disposal, you can accomplish a lot in your life. The essay on knowledge is power will help you learn more about it.

Knowledge is Treasure

There are some people only who understand how important knowledge is. While every educated person may not be intelligent, it is true that every qualified person has an education .

It may seem like a strange statement but it is true. When you have the treasure of knowledge, you can drive a car or even fly an aeroplane. Similarly, you can crack puzzles and solve riddles with knowledge.

Therefore, it allows you to do the little as well as big things. When you have the knowledge, you can stop yourself from falling into the same trap. Also, you cannot buy knowledge. It is very essential to note this in this essay on knowledge is power.

It is a treasure that cannot be bought. You gain it and you earn it with your hard work. Therefore, the real gem is that of knowledge that will make you a successful person in life and help you gain power and respect.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Knowledge is a Bottomless Ocean

Knowledge is like a bottomless ocean . The more you dive deep into it, the deeper it will appear to you. Thus, there are no limits in the world of knowledge. When you desire knowledge, you thirst for riches unknown.

Once you taste the nectar of knowledge, you cannot restrain your desire for it. You only get the desire to gain more wisdom and acquire more knowledge. There is a proverb that tells us that people will worship the king in his kingdom alone but they will worship a man of knowledge all over the world.

In other words, a person with knowledge can find a home in any part of the world. The ocean of knowledge gives us broad thinking and makes us fearless. Moreover, our vision becomes clear through it.

Also, when you get the knowledge of various things like science, medicine, politics, and more, you can work for the betterment of the world. Knowledge gives birth to inventions and discoveries.

Conclusion of Essay on Knowledge is Power

All in all, knowledge allows people to flourish in life. Similarly, it also helps to hold off wars and abuse. It is responsible for bringing peace to the world and helping nations prosper. It can open doors to success and unite people like never before.

FAQ on Essay on Knowledge is Power

Question 1: What does Knowledge is Power mean?

Answer 1: When we say knowledge is power, we mean that a person with education has the power to control his life by making use of his knowledge. Moreover, it helps us overcome hurdles easily.

Question 2: Why is knowledge so important?

Answer 2: Knowledge improves our thinking and helps us solve problems. It is important because it enhances our reasoning and critical thinking to make better decisions in life and choose the correct path.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

Travelling Essay
Picnic Essay
Our Country Essay
My Parents Essay
Essay on Favourite Personality
Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
Essay on Gurpurab
Essay on My Favourite Season
Essay on Types of Sports

Download the App

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Feminist Perspectives on Power

Although any general definition of feminism would no doubt be controversial, it seems undeniable that much work in feminist theory is devoted to the tasks of critiquing gender subordination, analyzing its intersections with other forms of subordination such as racism, heterosexism, and class oppression, and envisioning prospects for individual and collective resistance and emancipation. Insofar as the concept of power is central to each of these theoretical tasks, power is clearly a central concept for feminist theory as well. And yet, curiously, it is one that is not often explicitly thematized in feminist work (exceptions include Allen 1998, 1999, Caputi 2013, Hartsock 1983 and 1996, Yeatmann 1997, and Young 1992). Indeed, Wendy Brown contends that “Power is one of those things we cannot approach head-on or in isolation from other subjects if we are to speak about it intelligently” (Brown 1988, 207). This poses a unique challenge for assessing feminist perspectives on power, as those perspectives must first be reconstructed from discussions of other topics. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify three main ways in which feminists have conceptualized power: as a resource to be (re)distributed, as domination, and as empowerment. After a brief discussion of the power debates in social and political theory, this entry will survey each of these feminist conceptions.

1. Defining power

2. power as resource: liberal feminist approaches, 3.1 phenomenological feminist approaches, 3.2 radical feminist approaches, 3.3 socialist feminist approaches, 3.4 intersectional approaches, 3.5 poststructuralist feminist approaches, 3.6 postcolonial and decolonial feminist approaches, 3.7 analytic feminist approaches, 4. power as empowerment, 5. concluding thoughts, other internet resources, related entries.

In social and political theory, power is often regarded as an essentially contested concept (see Lukes 1974 and 2005, and Connolly 1983). Although this claim is itself contested (see Haugaard 2010 and 2020, 4–10; Morriss 2002, 199–206 and Wartenberg 1990, 12–17), there is no doubt that the literature on power is marked by deep, widespread, and seemingly intractable disagreements over how the term should be understood.

One such disagreement pits those who define power as getting someone else to do what you want them to do, that is, as an exercise of power-over others, against those who define it as an ability or a capacity to act, that is, as a power-to do something. The classic formulation of the former definition is offered by Max Weber, who defines power as “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance…” (1978, 53). Similarly, Robert Dahl offers what he calls an “intuitive idea of power” according to which “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do” (1957, 202–03). Dahl’s discussion of power sparked a vigorous debate that continued until the mid-1970s, but even his sharpest critics seemed to concede his definition of power as an exercise of power-over others (see Bachrach and Baratz 1962 and Lukes 1974). As Steven Lukes notes, Dahl’s one-dimensional view of power, Bachrach and Baratz’s two-dimensional view, and his own three-dimensional view are all variations of “the same underlying conception of power, according to which A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests” (1974, 30). Similarly, but from a very different theoretical background, Michel Foucault’s highly influential analysis implicitly presupposes that power is a kind of power-over; and he puts it, “if we speak of the structures or the mechanisms of power, it is only insofar as we suppose that certain persons exercise power over others” (1983, 217). Notice that there are two salient features of this definition of power: power is understood in terms of power-over relations, and it is defined in terms of its actual exercise.

Classic articulations of power understood as power-to have been offered by Thomas Hobbes – power is a person’s “present means…to obtain some future apparent Good” (Hobbes 1985 (1641), 150) – and Hannah Arendt – power is “the human ability not just to act but to act in concert” (1970, 44). Arguing in favor of this way of conceptualizing power, Hanna Pitkin notes that the word “power” is related etymologically to the French pouvoir and the Latin potere , both of which mean to be able. “That suggests,” she writes, “that power is a something – anything – which makes or renders somebody able to do, capable of doing something. Power is capacity, potential, ability, or wherewithal” (1972, 276). Similarly, Peter Morriss (2002) and Lukes (2005) define power as a dispositional concept, meaning, as Lukes puts it, that power “is a potentiality, not an actuality – indeed a potentiality that may never be actualized” (2005, 69). (Note that this statement amounts to a significant revision of Lukes’s earlier analysis of power, in which he argued against defining power as power-to on the grounds that such a definition obscures “the conflictual aspect of power – the fact that it is exercised over people” and thus fails to address what we care about most when we decide to study power (1974, 31). For helpful discussion of whether Lukes’s embrace of the dispositional conception of power is compatible with his other theoretical commitments, see Haugaard (2010)). Some of the theorists who analyze power as power-to leave power-over entirely out of their analysis. For example, Arendt distinguishes power sharply from authority, strength, force, and violence, and offers a normative account in which power is understood as an end in itself (1970). As Jürgen Habermas has argued, this has the effect of screening any and all strategic understandings of power (where power is understood in the Weberian sense as imposing one’s will on another) out of her analysis (Habermas 1994). (Although Arendt defines power as a capacity, she also maintains that “power springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment they disperse” (1958, 200); hence, it is not clear whether she fully accepts a dispositional view of power). Others suggest that both aspects of power are important, but then focus their attention on either power-over (e.g., Connolly 1993) or power-to (e.g., Morriss 2002). Still others define power-over as a particular type of capacity, namely, the capacity to impose one’s will on others; on this view, power-over is a derivative form of power-to (Allen 1999, Lukes 2005). However, others have argued power-over and power-to refer to fundamentally different concepts and that it is a mistake to try to develop an account of power that integrates them (Pitkin 1972, Wartenberg 1990).

Another way of carving up the power literature is to distinguish between action-theoretical conceptions – that is, those that define power in terms of either the actions or the dispositional abilities of individual actors – and broader systemic or constitutive conceptions – that is, those that view power as systematically structuring possibilities for action, or, more strongly, as constitutive of social actors and the social world in which they act. On this way of distinguishing various conceptions of power, Hobbes and Weber are on the same side, since both of them understand power in primarily instrumentalist, individualist, and action-theoretical terms (Saar 2010, 10). The systemic conception, by contrast, views power as “the ways in which given social systems confer differentials of dispositional power on agents, thus structuring their possibilities for action” (Haugaard 2010, 425; see Clegg 1989). The systemic conception thus highlights the ways in which broad historical, political, economic, cultural, and social forces enable some individuals to exercise power over others, or inculcate certain abilities and dispositions in some actors but not in others. Saar argues, however, that the systemic conception of power should be understood not as an alternative to the action-theoretical conception of power, but rather as a more complex and sophisticated variant of that model. For, as he says, its “basic scenario remains individualistic at the methodological level: power operates on individuals as individuals, in the form of a ‘bringing to action’ or external determination” (Saar 2010, 14).

The constitutive conception of power pushes the insight of the systemic conception further by focusing on the constitutive relationships between power, individuals, and the social worlds they inhabit. The roots of this constitutive conception can be traced back to Spinoza (2002a and 2002b; Saar 2013), but variants of this view are also found in the work of more contemporary theorists such as Arendt and Foucault. Here it is important to note that Foucault’s work on power contains both action-theoretical and constitutive strands. The former strand is evident in his claim, cited above, that “if we speak of the structures or the mechanisms of power, it is only insofar as we suppose that certain persons exercise power over others” (Foucault 1983, 217), whereas the latter strand is evident in his definition of power as “the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organization; as the processes which, through ceaseless struggles and confrontations, transforms, strengthens, or reverses them;…thus forming a chain or system” (Foucault 1979, 92).

What accounts for the highly contested nature of the concept of power? One explanation is that how we conceptualize power is shaped by the political and theoretical interests that we bring to our study of it (Lukes 1986, Said 1986). For example, democratic theorists are interested in different things when they study power than are social movement theorists or critical race theorists or postcolonial theorists, and so on. Thus, a specific conceptualization of power could be more or less useful depending on the specific disciplinary or theoretical context in which it is deployed, where usefulness is evaluated in terms of how well it “accomplishes the task the theorists set for themselves” (Haugaard 2010, 426). On this view, if we suppose that feminists who are interested in power are interested in understanding and critiquing gender-based relations of domination and subordination as these intersect with other axes of oppression and thinking about how such relations can be transformed through individual and collective resistance, then we would conclude that specific conceptions of power should be evaluated in terms of how well they enable feminists to fulfill those aims.

Lukes suggests another, more radical, explanation for the essentially contested nature of the concept of power: our conceptions of power are, according to him, themselves shaped by power relations. As he puts it, “how we think about power may serve to reproduce and reinforce power structures and relations, or alternatively it may challenge and subvert them. It may contribute to their continued functioning, or it may unmask their principles of operation, whose effectiveness is increased by their being hidden from view. To the extent that this is so, conceptual and methodological questions are inescapably political and so what ‘power’ means is ‘essentially contested’…” (Lukes 2005, 63). The thought that conceptions of power are themselves shaped by power relations is behind the claim, made by many feminists, that the influential conception of power as power-over is itself a product of patriarchal domination (for further discussion, see section 4 below).

Those who conceptualize power as a resource understand it as a positive social good that is currently unequally distributed. For feminists who understand power in this way, the goal is to redistribute this resource so that women will have power equal to men. Implicit in this view is the assumption that power is, as Iris Marion Young puts it, “a kind of stuff that can be possessed by individuals in greater or lesser amounts” (Young 1990, 31).

The conception of power as a resource is arguably implicit in the work of some liberal feminists (Mill 1970, Okin 1989). For example, in Justice, Gender, and the Family , Susan Moller Okin argues that the modern gender-structured family unjustly distributes the benefits and burdens of familial life amongst husbands and wives. Okin includes power on her list of the benefits, which she calls “critical social goods.” As she puts it, “when we look seriously at the distribution between husbands and wives of such critical social goods as work (paid and unpaid), power, prestige, self-esteem, opportunities for self-development, and both physical and economic security, we find socially constructed inequalities between them, right down the list” (Okin, 1989, 136). Here, Okin seems to presuppose that power is a resource that is unequally and unjustly distributed between men and women; hence, one of the goals of feminism would be to redistribute this resource in more equitable ways.

Although she doesn’t discuss Okin’s work explicitly, Young offers a compelling critique of this view, which she calls the distributive model of power. First, Young maintains that it is wrong to think of power as a kind of stuff that can be possessed; on her view, power is a relation, not a thing that can be distributed or redistributed. Second, she claims that the distributive model tends to presuppose a dyadic, atomistic understanding of power; as a result, it fails to illuminate the broader social, institutional and structural contexts that shape individual relations of power. According to Young, this makes the distributive model unhelpful for understanding the structural features of domination. Third, the distributive model conceives of power statically, as a pattern of distribution, whereas Young, following Foucault (1980), claims that power exists only in action, and thus must be understood dynamically, as existing in ongoing processes or interactions. Finally, Young argues that the distributive model of power tends to view domination as the concentration of power in the hands of a few. According to Young, although this model might be appropriate for some forms of domination, it is not appropriate for the forms that domination takes in contemporary industrial societies such as the United States (Young 1990a, 31–33). On her view, in contemporary industrial societies, power is “widely dispersed and diffused” and yet it is nonetheless true that “social relations are tightly defined by domination and oppression” (Young 1990a, 32–33).

3. Power as Domination

Young’s critique of the distributive model points toward an alternative way of conceptualizing power, one that understands power not as a resource or critical social good, but instead views it as a relation of domination. Although feminists have often used a variety of terms to refer to this kind of relation – including “oppression,” “patriarchy,” “subjection,” and so forth –the common thread in these analyses is an understanding of power as an unjust or illegitimate power-over relation. In the remainder of this entry, I use the term “domination” simply to refer to unjust or oppressive power-over relations. In this section, I discuss the specific ways in which feminists with different political and philosophical commitments – influenced by phenomenology, radical feminism, Marxist socialism, intersectionality theory, post-structuralism, postcolonial and decolonial theory, and analytic philosophy – have conceptualized domination.

The locus classicus of feminist phenomenological approaches to theorizing male domination is Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex . Beauvoir’s text provides a brilliant analysis of the situation of women: the social, cultural, historical, and economic conditions that define their existence. Her diagnosis of women’s situation relies on the distinction between being for-itself – self-conscious subjectivity that is capable of freedom and transcendence – and being in-itself – the un-self-conscious things that are incapable of freedom and mired in immanence. Beauvoir argues that whereas men have assumed the status of the transcendent subject, women have been relegated to the status of the immanent Other. As she puts it in a famous passage from the Introduction to The Second Sex : “She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other” (Beauvoir, xxii). This distinction – between man as Subject and woman as Other – is the key to Beauvoir’s understanding of domination or oppression. She writes, “every time transcendence falls back into immanence, stagnation, there is a degradation of existence into the ‘en-soi’ – the brutish life of subjection to given conditions – and liberty into constraint and contingence. This downfall represents a moral fault if the subject consents to it; if it is inflicted upon him, it spells frustration and oppression. In both cases it is an absolute evil” (Beauvoir, xxxv). Although Beauvoir suggests that women are partly responsible for submitting to the status of the Other in order to avoid the anguish of authentic existence (hence, they are in bad faith) (see Beauvoir xxvii), she maintains that women are oppressed because they are compelled to assume the status of the Other, doomed to immanence (xxxv). Women’s situation is thus marked by a basic tension between transcendence and immanence; as self-conscious human beings, they are capable of transcendence, but they are compelled into immanence by cultural and social conditions that deny them that transcendence (see Beauvoir, chapter 21).

Some feminists have criticized Beauvoir's conception of oppression for its reliance on a problematic analogy between race and gender (see, for example, her claim that “there are deep similarities between the situation of woman and that of the Negro,” (Beauvoir, xxix)). Beauvoir's frequent use of such analogies, critics contend, erases the experience of Black women by implicitly coding all women as white and all Blacks as male (Gines (Belle) 2010 and 2017, Collins 2019, 194–198, and Simons 2002). As Kathryn T. Gines (now Kathryn Sophia Belle) argues further, Beauvoir's analysis deploys “comparative and competing frameworks of oppression” (Gines (Belle) 2014a). At times, Beauvoir treats not just sexism and racism but also antisemitism, colonialism, and class oppression comparatively, arguing that they rest of similar dynamics of Othering. Her comparative analysis of race and gender is most problematic in her frequent analogy between the situation of women and that of the slave. As Belle argues, this analogy not only obscures the experiences of Black female slaves, it also leads Beauvior to “engage in an appropriation of Black suffering in the form of slavery to advance her philosophical discussion of woman's situation” (265). At other times, Beauvoir treats racism, sexism, antisemitism, colonialism, and class oppression as competing frameworks and argues that gender subordination is the most significant and constitutive form of oppression. Both moves are problematic, according to Belle, the former for its erasure of the oppression of Black women and the latter for its privileging of gender oppression over other forms of oppression.

Feminist phenomenologists have engaged critically with Beauvoir's work while extending her insights into power. For example, Young argues that Beauvoir pays relatively little attention to the role that female embodiment plays in women’s oppression (Young 1990b, 142–3). Although Beauvoir does discuss women’s bodies in relation to their status as immanent Other, she tends to focus on women’s physiology and how physiological features such as menstruation and pregnancy tie women more closely to nature, thus, to immanence. In her essay, “Throwing Like a Girl,” Young draws on Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological analysis of the lived body to analyze “the situatedness of the woman’s actual bodily movement and orientation to its surroundings and its world” (Young 1990b, 143). She notes that girls and women often fail to use fully the spatial potential of their bodies (for example, they throw “like girls”), they try not to take up too much space, and they tend to approach physical activity tentatively and uncertainly (Young 1990b, 145–147). Young argues that feminine bodily comportment, movement, and spatial orientation exhibit the same tension between transcendence and immanence that Beauvoir diagnoses in The Second Sex . “At the root of those modalities,” Young writes, “is the fact that the woman lives her body as object as well as subject. The source of this is that patriarchal society defines woman as object, as a mere body, and that in sexist society women are in fact frequently regarded by others as objects and mere bodies” (Young 1990b, 155). And yet women are also subjects, and, thus, cannot think of themselves as mere bodily objects. As a result, woman “cannot be in unity with herself” (Young 1990b, 155). Young explores the tension between transcendence and immanence and the lack of unity characteristic of feminine subjectivity in more detail in several other essays that explore pregnant embodiment, women’s experience with their clothes, and breasted experience (See Young 1990b, chapters 9–11).

Much important work in feminist phenomenology follows Young in drawing inspiration from Merleau-Ponty’s analyses of embodiment and intercorporeality (see Heinamaa 2003, Weiss 1999); like Young, these authors use a Merleau-Pontyian approach to phenomenology to explore the fundamental modalities of female embodiment or feminine bodily comportment. Feminists have also mined the work of Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, for useful resources for feminist phenomenology (Al-Saji 2010 and Oksala 2016).

More generally, Oksala defends the importance of feminist phenomenology as an exploration of gendered experience against poststructuralist critics who find such a project hopelessly essentialist. While Oksala acknowledges that essentialism is a danger found in some work in feminist phenomenology – for example, she is critical of Sonia Kruks (2001) for “considering ‘female experience’ as an irreducible given grounded in a female body” (Oksala 2016, 72) – she also insists that a phenomenological analysis of experience is crucial for feminism. As she puts it, “it is my contention that feminist theory must ‘retrieve experience’, but this cannot mean returning to a pre discursive female experience grounded in the commonalities of women’s embodiment” (40). On her view, experience is always constructed in such a way that it “reflects oppressive discourses and power relations” (43); and yet, experience and thought or discourse are not co-extensive. This means that there is always a gap between our personal experience and the linguistic representations that we employ to make sense of that experience, and it is this gap that provides the space for contestation and critique. Thus, Oksala concludes, “experiences can contest discourses even if, or precisely because, they are conceptual through and through” (50). For Oksala, experience plays a crucial role in reinforcing and reproducing oppressive power relations, but radical reflection on our experience opens up a space for individual and collective resistance to and transformation of those power relations.

The concept of experience is also central to Mariana Ortega's analysis of Latina feminist phenomenology (Ortega 2016). Ortega reads the prominent Latina feminists Gloria Anzaldúa and María Lugones as phenomenologists “whose writings are deeply informed by their lived experience, specifically by their experience of marginalization and oppression as well as their experience of resistance” (7). By highlighting the experience of marginalized and oppressed selves who live their lives at the borderlands or in a state of in-betweenness, Latina feminist phenomenology, as Ortega reads it, offers an important corrective to and expansion of the critique of modern subjectivity in the European phenomenological tradition.

For other influential feminist-phenomenological analyses of domination see Bartky 1990, 2002, Bordo 1993, and Kruks 2001. For helpful overviews of feminist phenomenology, see Fisher and Embree 2000, and Heinamaa and Rodemeyer 2010. For a highly influential articulation of queer phenomenology, drawing on the work of Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Fanon, see Ahmed (2006). For a compelling phenomenological analysis of transgender experience, see Salamon (2010).

Unlike liberal feminists, who view power as a positive social resource that ought to be fairly distributed, and feminist phenomenologists, who understand domination in terms of a tension between transcendence and immanence, radical feminists tend to understand power in terms of dyadic relations of dominance/subordination, often understood on analogy with the relationship between master and slave.

For example, in the work of legal theorist Catharine MacKinnon, domination is closely bound up with her understanding of gender difference. According to MacKinnon, gender difference is simply the reified effect of domination. As she puts it, “difference is the velvet glove on the iron fist of domination. The problem is not that differences are not valued; the problem is that they are defined by power” (MacKinnon 1989, 219). If gender difference is itself a function of domination, then the implication is that men are powerful and women are powerless by definition. As MacKinnon puts it, “women/men is a distinction not just of difference, but of power and powerlessness….Power/powerlessness is the sex difference” (MacKinnon 1987, 123). (In this passage, MacKinnon glosses over the distinction, articulated by many second-wave feminists, between sex – the biologically rooted traits that make one male or female, traits that are often presumed to be natural and immutable – and gender – the socially and culturally rooted, hence contingent and mutable, traits, characteristics, dispositions, and practices that make one a woman or a man. This passage suggests that MacKinnon, like Judith Butler (1990) and other critics of the sex/gender distinction, thinks that sex difference, no less than gender difference, is socially constructed and shaped by relations of power.) If men are powerful and women powerless as such, then male domination is, on this view, pervasive. Indeed, MacKinnon claims that it is a basic “fact of male supremacy” that “no woman escapes the meaning of being a woman within a gendered social system, and sex inequality is not only pervasive but may be universal (in the sense of never having not been in some form” (MacKinnon 1989, 104–05). For MacKinnon, heterosexual intercourse is the paradigm of male domination; as she puts it, “the social relation between the sexes is organized so that men may dominate and women must submit and this relation is sexual – in fact, is sex” (MacKinnon 1987, 3). As a result, she tends to presuppose a dyadic conception of domination, according to which individual women are subject to the will of individual men. If male domination is pervasive and women are powerless by definition, then it follows that female power is “a contradiction in terms, socially speaking” (MacKinnon 1987, 53). The claim that female power is a contradiction in terms has led many feminists to criticize MacKinnon on the grounds that she denies women’s political agency and presents them as helpless victims (for exemplary versions of this criticism, see Brown 1995 and Butler 1997a).

Marilyn Frye likewise offers a radical feminist analysis of power that seems to presuppose a dyadic model of domination. Frye identifies several faces of power, one of the most important of which is access. As Frye puts it, “total power is unconditional access; total powerlessness is being unconditionally accessible. The creation and manipulation of power is constituted of the manipulation and control of access” (Frye 1983, 103). If access is one of the most important faces of power, then feminist separatism, insofar as it is a way of denying access to women’s bodies, emotional support, domestic labor, and so forth, represents a profound challenge to male power. For this reason, Frye maintains that all feminism that is worth the name entails some form of separatism. She also suggests that this is the real reason that men get so upset by acts of separatism: “if you are doing something that is so strictly forbidden by the patriarchs, you must be doing something right” (Frye 1983, 98). Frye frequently compares male domination to a master/slave relationship (see, for example, 1983, 103–105), and she defines oppression as “a system of interrelated barriers and forces which reduce, immobilize, and mold people who belong to a certain group, and effect their subordination to another group (individually to individuals of the other group, and as a group, to that group)” (Frye 1983, 33). In addition to access, Frye discusses definition as another, related, face of power. Frye claims that “the powerful normally determine what is said and sayable” (105). For example, “when the Secretary of Defense calls something a peace negotiation…then whatever it is that he called a peace negotiation is an instance of negotiating peace” (105). Under conditions of subordination, women typically do not have the power to define the terms of their situation, but by controlling access, Frye argues, they can begin to assert control over their own self-definition. Both of these – controlling access and definition – are ways of taking power. Although she does not go so far as MacKinnon does in claiming that female power is a contradiction in terms, Frye does claim that “if there is one thing women are queasy about it is actually taking power” (Frye 1983, 107).

A similar dyadic conception of male domination can arguably be found in Carole Pateman’s The Sexual Contract (1988) (although Pateman's work is heavily influenced by socialist feminism, her account of power is closer to radical feminism). Like MacKinnon, Pateman claims that gender difference is constituted by domination; as she puts it, “the patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection” (Pateman 1988, 207). She also claims that male domination is pervasive, and she explicitly appeals to a master/subject model to understand it; as she puts it, “in modern civil society all men are deemed good enough to be women’s masters” (Pateman 1988, 219). In Pateman’s view, the social contract that initiates civil society and provides for the legitimate exercise of political rights is also a sexual contract that establishes what she calls “the law of male sex-right,” securing male sexual access to and dominance over women (1988, 182). As Nancy Fraser has argued, on Pateman’s view, the sexual contract “institutes a series of male/female master/subject dyads” (Fraser 1993, 173). Fraser is highly critical of Pateman’s analysis, which she terms the “master/subject model,” a model that presents women’s subordination “first and foremost as the condition of being subject to the direct command of an individual man” (1993, 173). The problem with this dyadic account of women’s subordination, according to Fraser, is that “gender inequality is today being transformed by a shift from dyadic relations of mastery and subjection to more impersonal structural mechanisms that are lived through more fluid cultural forms” (1993, 180). Fraser suggests that, in order to understand women’s subordination in contemporary Western societies, feminists will have to move beyond the master/subject model to analyze how women’s subordination is secured through cultural norms, social practices, and other impersonal structural mechanisms. (For Pateman’s response to Fraser’s criticism, see Pateman and Mills (2007, 205–06)).

Although feminists such as Fraser, Judith Butler, and Wendy Brown have been highly critical of the radical feminist account of domination, analytic feminists have found this account more productive. For example, Rae Langton (2009) has used speech act theory to defend MacKinnon's claims that pornography both causes and constitutes women's subordination. More generally, Langton (2009) and Sally Haslanger (2012) have drawn on MacKinnon's work to develop an account of sexual objectification and to explore the ways that objectification is often obscured by claims to objectivity (for further discussion of Haslanger's work, see section 3.7 below).

According to the traditional Marxist account of power, domination is understood on the model of class exploitation; domination results from the capitalist appropriation of the surplus value that is produced by the workers. As many second wave feminist critics of Marx have pointed out, however, Marx’s categories are gender-blind (see, for example, Firestone 1970, Hartmann 1980, Hartsock 1983, Rubin 1976). Marx ignores the ways in which class exploitation and gender subordination are intertwined; because he focuses solely on economic production, Marx overlooks women’s reproductive labor in the home and the exploitation of this labor in capitalist modes of production. As a result of this gender-blindness, second wave Marxist or socialist feminists argued that Marx’s analysis of class domination must be supplemented with a radical feminist critique of patriarchy in order to yield a satisfactory account of women’s oppression; the resulting theory is referred to as dual systems theory (see, for example, Eisenstein 1979, Hartmann 1980). As Young describes it, “dual systems theory says that women’s oppression arises from two distinct and relatively autonomous systems. The system of male domination, most often called ‘patriarchy’, produces the specific gender oppression of women; the system of the mode of production and class relations produces the class oppression and work alienation of most women” (Young 1990b, 21). Although Young agrees with the aim of theorizing class and gender domination in a single theory, she is critical of dual systems theory on the grounds that “it allows Marxism to retain in basically unchanged form its theory of economic and social relations, on to which it merely grafts a theory of gender relations” (Young 1990b, 24). Young calls instead for a more unified theory, a truly feminist historical materialism that would offer a critique of the social totality.

In a later essay, Young offers a more systematic analysis of oppression, an analysis that is grounded in her earlier call for a comprehensive socialist feminism. Young identifies five faces of oppression: economic exploitation, socio-economic marginalization, lack of power or autonomy over one’s work, cultural imperialism, and systematic violence (Young 1992, 183–193). The first three faces of oppression in this list expand on the Marxist account of economic exploitation, and the last two go beyond that account, bringing out other aspects of oppression that are not well explained in economic terms. According to Young, being subject to any one of these forms of power is sufficient to call a group oppressed, but most oppressed groups in the United States experience more than one of these forms of power, and some experience all five (Young 1992, 194). She also claims that this list is comprehensive, both in the sense that “covers all the groups said by new left social movements to be oppressed” and that it “covers all the ways they are oppressed” (Young 1992, 181; for critical discussion, see Allen 2008b).

Nancy Hartsock offers a different vision of feminist historical materialism in her book Money, Sex, and Power : Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism (1983). In this book, Hartsock is concerned with “(1) how relations of domination along lines of gender are constructed and maintained and (2) whether social understandings of domination itself have been distorted by men’s domination of women” (Hartsock 1983, 1). Following Marx’s conception of ideology, Hartsock maintains that the prevailing ideas and theories of a time period are rooted in the material, economic relations of that society. This applies, in her view, to theories of power as well. Thus, she criticizes theories of power in mainstream political science for presupposing a market model of economic relations – a model that understands the economy primarily in terms of exchange, which is how it appears from the perspective of the ruling class rather than in terms of production, which is how it appears from the perspective of the worker. She also argues that power and domination have consistently been associated with masculinity. Because power has been understood from the position of the socially dominant – the ruling class and men – the feminist task, according to Hartsock, is to reconceptualize power from a specifically feminist standpoint, one that is rooted in women’s life experience, specifically, their role in reproduction. Conceptualizing power from this standpoint can, according to Hartsock, “point beyond understandings of power as power over others” (Hartsock 1983, 12). (We’ll come back to this point in section 4).

Socialist feminism fell largely out of fashion during the latter part of the 20th century, fueled in part by the rise of poststructuralism, the prominence of identity and recognition based politics, and the emergence of a neoliberal consensus (for a trenchant critique of these developments, see Fraser 1996 and 2013). However, in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008, socialist feminism, now often referred to as Social Reproduction Theory (SRT), has made a comeback. SRT has a long history, with important early contributions by Silvia Federici (1975) and Maria Mies (1986) and connections to the Italian wages for housework campaign that began in the 1970s; for more recent discussions, see Tithi Bhattacharya (2017), Federici (2014 and 2019), and Alessandra Mezzadri (2019). SRT is a Marxist feminist project that orients itself to a question that remains implicit in Marx's theory of value: how is labor power, which is the source of value and thus of exploitation in Marx's account, itself produced, reproduced, and maintained? SRT maintains that labor power is produced and reproduced outside of the official economy, largely through women's unpaid labor within the family or domestic sphere. For social reproduction theorists, the production of goods and services is thus possible only on the basis of (largely) unpaid social reproduction, which includes childbirth, domestic work, caring for children, the elderly and others who cannot work for wages, and so on. For Federici, this represents an ongoing process of expropriation akin to Marx's notion of primitive accumulation (Federici 2014). Social reproduction theorists understand production and reproduction as parts of an integrated system; indeed, they view the distinction between the two as ultimately misleading inasmuch as it obscures the ways in which social reproduction is itself productive of value (Mezzadri 2019). For a related attempt to understand capitalism as a social totality whose relations of production are made possible by the expropriation of socially reproductive labor, environmental resources, and the labor of dispossessed and colonized peoples, see Fraser in Fraser and Jaeggi (2018).

Theories of intersectionality highlight the complex, interconnected, and cross-cutting relationships between diverse modes of domination, including (but not limited to) sexism, racism, class oppression, and heterosexism. The project of intersectional feminism grew out of Black feminism, which, as scholars have recently noted, has a long tradition of examining the interconnections between racism and sexism, stretching back to the writing and activism of late 19th and early 20th century black feminists such as Maria W. Stewart, Ida. B. Wells, Anna Julia Cooper, and Sojourner Truth (see Gines 2014b and Cooper 2016). Because these thinkers and activists did not use the term intersectionality, Gines (now Belle) characterizes their work as proto-intersectional, which she defines as follows: “identifying and combating racism and sexism – through activist organizing and campaigning – not only as separate categories impacting identity and oppression, but also as systems of oppression that work together and mutually reinforce one another, presenting unique problems for black women who experience both, simultaneously and differently than white women and/or black men” (Gines 2014b, 14). Other important antecedents to contemporary intersectionality theory include the Combahee River Collective’s notion of “interlocking systems of oppression” (CRC 1977), Deborah King’s analysis of multiple jeopardy and multiple consciousness (King 1988), and the work from the 1980s of Black feminists such as Audre Lorde (1984), Angela Davis (1984), and bell hooks (1981). As Mariana Ortega has argued (2016), there are also important conceptions of intersectionality developed in Latina feminism, particularly in Anzaldúa's account of the borderlands and mestiza consciusness (Anzaldúa 1987) and Lugones's account of the intermeshedness of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and class (Lugones 2003).

In other words, the concept of intersectionality has a long history and a complex genealogy (for discussions, see Cooper 2016, Collins 2011 and 2019, 123–126, and Nash 2019). Still, it is widely acknowledged that the contemporary discussion and use of the term intersectionality was sparked by the work of legal theorist Kimberle Crenshaw (Crenshaw 1991a and 1991b), specifically, by her critique of single-axis frameworks for understanding domination in the context of legal discrimination. A single-axis framework treats race and gender as mutually exclusive categories of experience. In so doing, such a framework implicitly privileges the perspective of the most privileged members of oppressed groups – sex or class-privileged Blacks in race discrimination cases; race or class-privileged women in sex discrimination cases. Thus, a single-axis framework distorts the experiences of Black women, who are simultaneously subject to multiple and intersecting forms of subordination. As Crenshaw explains, “the intersection of racism and sexism factors into Black women’s lives in ways that cannot be captured wholly by looking at the race or gender dimensions of those experiences separately” (Crenshaw 1991b, 1244).

In the thirty years since the publication of Crenshaw’s essays on intersectionality, this framework has become extraordinarily influential in women’s, gender, and sexuality studies. Indeed, it has been called “the most important contribution that women’s studies, in conjunction with other fields, has made so far” (McCall 2005, 1771). However, feminist philosophers have noted that this influence has yet to be felt within the mainstream of the discipline of philosophy, where “intersectionality is largely ignored as a philosophical theme or framework” (Goswami, O’Donovan and Yount 2014, 6). Moreover, intersectionality is not without its feminist critics.

Some sympathetic critics of intersectionality have suggested that the concept is limited in that it focuses primarily on the action-theoretical level. A full analysis of the intertwining of racial, gender, and class-based subordination also requires, on this view, a systemic or macro-level concept that corresponds to the concept of intersectionality. Echoing the Combahee River Collective (CRC 1977), Patricia Hill Collins proposes the term “interlocking systems of oppression” to fulfill this role. As she explains, “the notion of interlocking oppressions refers to the macro-level connections linking systems of oppression such as race, class, and gender. This is the model describing the social structures that create social positions. Second, the notion of intersectionality describes micro-level processes – namely, how each individual and group occupies a social position within interlocking structures of oppression described by the metaphor of intersectionality. Together they shape oppression” (Collins et al . 2002, 82).

Others have worried that discussions of intersectionality tend to focus too much on relations and sites of oppression and subordination, without also taking into account relations of privilege and dominance. As Jennifer Nash has argued, this has led to “the question of whether all identities are intersectional or whether only multiply marginalized subjects have an intersectional identity” (Nash 2008, 9). Although some feminist scholars claim that intersectionality encompasses all subject positions, not just those that are marginalized or oppressed, Nash notes that “the overwhelming majority of intersectional scholarship has centred on the particular positions of multiply marginalized subjects” (Nash 2008, 9–10). The over-emphasis on oppression in theories of intersectionality leads theorists “to ignore the intimate connections between privilege and oppression,” for example, by “ignor[ing] the ways in which subjects might be both victimized by patriarchy and privileged by race” (Nash 2008, 12). In response to this concern, philosophers such as Ann Garry have offered a broader, more inclusive conception of intersectionality that emphasizes both oppression and privilege (see Garry 2011).

Rather than supplementing the notion of intersectionality with a macro-level concept of interlocking systems of oppression or broadening it to include relations of oppression and privilege, Naomi Zack argues that feminists should move beyond it. Zack maintains that intersectionality undermines its own goal of making feminism more inclusive. It does this, on Zack’s view, by dividing women into smaller and smaller groups, formed by specific intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality, and so forth. As Zack puts it, “as a theory of women’s identity, intersectionality is not inclusive insofar as members of specific intersections of race and class create only their own feminisms” (Zack 2005, 2). Because it tends toward “the reification of intersections as incommensurable identities,” Zack maintains that “intersectionality has not borne impressive political fruit” (Zack 2005, 18).

From a very different perspective, queer theorists such as Lynne Huffer and Jasbir Puar have also criticized intersectionality as a theory of identity. Unlike Zack, however, their concern is not with the proliferation of incommensurable identities but rather with the ways in which the notion of intersectionality remains, as Puar says, “primarily trapped within the logic of identity” (Puar 2012, 60). As Huffer puts the point: “the institutionalization of intersectionality as the only approach to gender and sexuality that takes difference seriously masks intersectionality’s investment in a subject-making form of power-knowledge that runs the risk of perpetuating precisely the problems intersectionality had hoped to alleviate” (Huffer 2013, 18). Puar argues further that the primary concepts of intersectionality, including gender, race, class, and sexuality, are themselves the product of Eurocentric, modernist, and colonial discourses and practices and, as such, are problematic from the point of view of postcolonial and transnational feminism (Puar 2012).

Finally, Anna Carastathis has argued that the problem with intersectionality theory lies in its very success (Carastathis 2013 and 2014). Intersectionality has been, on her view, too easily appropriated by white-dominated feminist theory, cut off from its roots in Black and women of color feminism, and incorporated into a self-congratulatory progressivist narrative according to which “intersectionality is celebrated as a methodological triumph over ‘previous’ essentialist and exclusionary approaches to theorizing identity and power relations” (Carastathis 2014, 59; for related critiques, see Nash 2008 and 2019 and Puar 2012). Carastathis cites Kimberle Crenshaw’s lament that intersectionality’s reach is wide but not very deep, and suggests that this may be the result of aversive racism – that is, a desire to assert or establish racial innocence, but without really coming to terms with their own internalized racism – on the part of white feminists (Carastathis, 2014, 68–69).

In response to these sorts of criticisms of intersectionality, some scholars have attempted to reformulate the concept by understanding it as a family resemblance concept (Garry 2011) or by highlighting its provisionality (Carastathis, 2014). Others have argued for an expansion of the intersectional framework to better account for the experiences of diasporic subjects (Sheth 2014) or for a rethinking of this framework in relation to a Deleuzian notion of assemblage (Puar 2007 and 2012). Collins (2019) has proposed the development of intersectionality as a critical social theory through a reflection on its genealogy, epistemology, and methodology.

Most of the work on power done by post-structuralist feminists has been inspired by Foucault. In his middle period works (Foucault 1977, 1978, and 1980), Foucault analyzes modern power as a mobile and constantly shifting set of force relations that emerge from every social interaction and thus pervade the social body. As he puts it, “power is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere” (1978, 93). Foucault endeavors to offer a “micro-physics” of modern power (1977, 26), an analysis that focuses not on the concentration of power in the hands of the sovereign or the state, but instead on how power flows through the capillaries of the social body. Foucault criticizes previous analyses of power (primarily Marxist and Freudian) for assuming that power is fundamentally repressive, a belief that he terms the “repressive hypothesis” (1978, 17–49). Although Foucault does not deny that power sometimes functions repressively (see 1978, 12), he maintains that it is primarily productive; as he puts it, “power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth” (1977, 194). It also, according to Foucault, produces subjects. As he puts it, “the individual is not the vis-à-vis of power; it is, I believe, one of its prime effects” (1980, 98). According to Foucault, modern power subjects individuals, in both senses of the term; it simultaneously creates them as subjects by subjecting them to power. As we will see in a moment, Foucault’s account of subjection and his account of power more generally have been extremely fruitful, but also quite controversial, for feminists interested in analyzing domination.

It should come as no surprise that so many feminists have drawn on Foucault’s analysis of power. Foucault’s analysis of power has arguably been the most influential discussion of the topic over the last forty years; even those theorists of power who are highly critical of Foucault’s work acknowledge this influence (Lukes 2005 and, in a somewhat backhanded way, Morriss 2002). Moreover, Foucault’s focus on the local and capillary nature of modern power clearly resonates with feminist efforts to redefine the scope and bounds of the political, efforts that are summed up by the slogan “the personal is political.” At this point, the feminist work that has been inspired by Foucault’s analysis of power is so extensive and varied that it defies summarization (see, for example, Allen 1999 and 2008a, Bartky 1990, Bordo 2003, Butler 1990, 1993, 1997, Diamond and Quinby (eds) 1988, Fraser 1989, Hekman (ed) 1996, Heyes 2007, McLaren 2002, McNay 1992, McWhorter 1999, Sawicki 1990, and Young 1990). I will concentrate on highlighting a few central issues from this rich and diverse body of scholarship.

Several of the most prominent Foucaultian-feminist analyses of power draw on his account of disciplinary power in order to critically analyze normative femininity. In Discipline and Punish , Foucault analyzes the disciplinary practices that were developed in prisons, schools, and factories in the 18th century – including minute regulations of bodily movements, obsessively detailed time schedules, and surveillance techniques – and how these practices shape the bodies of prisoners, students and workers into docile bodies (1977, 135–169). In a highly influential essay, Sandra Bartky criticizes Foucault for failing to notice that disciplinary practices are gendered and that, through such gendered discipline, women’s bodies are rendered more docile than the bodies of men (1990, 65). Drawing on and extending Foucault’s account of disciplinary power, Bartky analyzes the disciplinary practices that engender specifically feminine docile bodies – including dieting practices, limitations on gestures and mobility, and bodily ornamentation. She also expands Foucault’s analysis of the Panopticon, Jeremy Bentham’s design for the ideal prison, a building whose spatial arrangement was designed to compel the inmate to surveil himself, thus becoming, as Foucault famously put it, “the principle of his own subjection” (1977, 203). With respect to gendered disciplinary practices such as dieting, restricting one’s movement so as to avoid taking up too much space, and keeping one’s body properly hairless, attired, ornamented and made up, Bartky observes “it is women themselves who practice this discipline on and against their own bodies….The woman who checks her make-up half a dozen times a day to see if her foundation has caked or her mascara run, who worries that the wind or rain may spoil her hairdo, who looks frequently to see if her stocking have bagged at the ankle, or who, feeling fat, monitors everything she eats, has become, just as surely as the inmate in the Panopticon, a self-policing subject, a self committed to relentless self-surveillance. This self-surveillance is a form of obedience to patriarchy” (1990, 80).

As Susan Bordo points out, this model of self-surveillance does not adequately illuminate all forms of female subordination – all too often women are actually compelled into submission by means of physical force, economic coercion, or emotional manipulation. Nevertheless, Bordo agrees with Bartky that “when it comes to the politics of appearance, such ideas are apt and illuminating” (1993, 27). Bordo explains that, in her own work, Foucault’s analysis of disciplinary power has been “extremely helpful both to my analysis of the contemporary disciplines of diet and exercise and to my understanding of eating disorders as arising out of and reproducing normative feminine practices of our culture, practices which train the female body in docility and obedience to cultural demands while at the same time being experienced in terms of power and control” (ibid). Bordo also highlights and makes use of Foucault’s understanding of power relations as inherently unstable, as always accompanied by, even generating, resistance (see Foucault 1983). “So, for example, the woman who goes into a rigorous weight-training program in order to achieve the currently stylish look may discover that her new muscles give her the self-confidence that enables her to assert herself more forcefully at work” (1993, 28).

Whereas Bartky and Bordo focus on Foucault’s account of disciplinary power, Judith Butler draws primarily on his analysis of subjection. For example, in her early and massively influential book, Gender Trouble (1990), Butler notes that “Foucault points out that juridical systems of power produce the subjects they subsequently come to represent. Juridical notions of power appear to regulate political life in purely negative terms…..But the subjects regulated by such structures are, by virtue of being subjected to them, formed, defined, and reproduced in accordance with the requirements of those structures” (1990, 2). The implication of this for feminists is, according to Butler, that “feminist critique ought also to understand how the category of ‘women’, the subject of feminism, is produced and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought” (1990, 2). This Foucaultian insight into the nature of subjection – into the ways in which becoming a subject means at the same time being subjected to power relations – thus forms the basis for Butler’s trenchant critique of the category of women, and for her call for a subversive performance of the gender norms that govern the production of gender identity. In Bodies that Matter (1993), Butler extends this analysis to consider the impact of subjection on the bodily materiality of the subject. As she puts is, “power operates for Foucault in the constitution of the very materiality of the subject, in the principle which simultaneously forms and regulates the ‘subject’ of subjectivation” (1993, 34). Thus, for Butler, power understood as subjection is implicated in the process of determining which bodies come to matter, whose lives are livable and whose deaths grievable. In The Psychic Life of Power (1997b), Butler expands further on the Foucaultian notion of subjection, bringing it into dialogue with a Freudian account of the psyche. In the introduction to that text, Butler notes that subjection is a paradoxical form of power. It has an element of domination and subordination, to be sure, but, she writes, “if, following Foucault, we understand power as forming the subject as well, as providing the very condition of its existence and the trajectory of its desire, then power is not simply what we oppose but also, in a strong sense, what we depend on for our existence and what we harbor and preserve in the beings that we are” (1997b, 2). Although Butler credits Foucault with recognizing the fundamentally ambivalent character of subjection, she also argues that he does not offer an account of the specific mechanisms by which the subjected subject is formed. For this, Butler maintains, we need an analysis of the psychic form that power takes, for only such an analysis can illuminate the passionate attachment to power that is characteristic of subjection.

Although many feminists have found Foucault’s analysis of power extremely fruitful and productive, Foucault has also had his share of feminist critics. In a very influential early assessment, Nancy Fraser argues that, although Foucault’s work offers some interesting empirical insights into the functioning of modern power, it is “normatively confused” (Fraser 1989, 31). In his writings on power, Foucault seems to eschew normative categories, preferring instead to describe the way that power functions in local practices and to argue for the appropriate methodology for studying power. He even seems to suggest that such normative notions as autonomy, legitimacy, sovereignty, and so forth, are themselves effects of modern power (this point has been contested recently in the literature on Foucault; see Allen 2008a and Oksala 2005). Fraser claims that this attempt to remain normatively neutral or even critical of normativity is incompatible with the politically engaged character of Foucault’s writings. Thus, for example, although Foucault claims that power is always accompanied by resistance, Fraser argues that he cannot explain why domination ought to be resisted. As she puts it, “only with the introduction of normative notions of some kind could Foucault begin to answer such questions. Only with the introduction of normative notions could he begin to tell us what is wrong with the modern power/knowledge regime and why we ought to oppose it” (1989, 29). Other feminists have criticized the Foucaultian claim that the subject is an effect of power. According to feminists such as Linda Martín Alcoff and Seyla Benhabib, such a claim implies a denial of agency that is incompatible with the demands of feminism as an emancipatory social movement (Alcoff 1990, Benhabib 1992, and Benhabib et al. 1995; for a reply to this line of criticism, see Allen 2008a chs. 2 and 3). Finally, Nancy Hartsock (1990 and 1996) calls into question the usefulness of Foucault’s work as an analytical tool. Hartsock makes two related arguments against Foucault. First, she argues that his analysis of power is not a theory for women because it does not examine power from the epistemological point of view of the subordinated; in her view, Foucault analyzes power from the perspective of the colonizer, rather than the colonized (1990). Second, Foucault’s analysis of power fails to adequately theorize structural relations of inequality and domination that undergird women’s subordination; this is related to the first argument because “domination, viewed from above, is more likely to look like equality”(1996, 39; for a response to this critique, see Allen 1996 and 1999).

Despite these and other trenchant feminist critiques of Foucault (see, for example, Hekman, ed. 1996 and Ramazanoglu, ed. 1993), his analysis of power continues to be an extremely useful resource for feminist conceptions of domination. For recent important feminist work that draws on Foucault’s genealogical method to offer an intersectional analysis of racism and gender or sexual oppression see Feder (2007) and McWhorter (2009).

Postcolonial and decolonial theory offer overlapping critiques of historical and contemporary practices and discourses of imperial and colonial domination. Yet they also have distinct lineages, theoretical commitments, and implications (for helpful discussion, see Bhambra 2014 and Ramamurthy and Tambe 2017). Postcolonial theory rose to prominence in the late 20th century, in association with the groundbreaking work of Edward Said (1979) and the Subaltern Studies Collective, and has been most influential in literary and cultural studies. Taking as its primary point of reference the northern European colonization of Southeast Asia and focusing primarily on the discursive and cultural effects of colonialism, postcolonial theory is deeply (though not uncritically) influenced by poststruturalism, particularly the work of Foucault and Jacques Derrida. Decolonial theory emerged somewhat later, in the early 2000s, in association with the Latin American and Carribean scholars in the Modernity/Coloniality group. Its primary point of reference is the colonization of the Americas that began in 1492. Heavily influenced by Latin American Marxism, world systems theory, and indigenous political struggles, decolonial theory focuses on the connections between capitalism, colonialism, and racial hierarchies. Although these two approaches are not mutually exclusive, decolonial theory is often viewed as the more radical of the two, due to its broader historical range and its calls for epistemic decolonization and delinking from capitalist modernity/coloniality (Ruíz 2021).

Gayatri Spivak's “Can the Subaltern Speak?” (1988) is widely viewed as the watershed text in postcolonial feminism. Spivak's essay opens with a critical discussion of an exchange betweeen Foucault and Gilles Deleuze, in which they reject the idea of speaking for the oppressed, insisting instead that the oppressed should speak for themselves. The first part of her essay is devoted to a critique of this claim and of the myriad ways in which Foucault and Deleuze ignore the epistemic violence of imperialism. It is Foucault and Deleuze’s insistence that the oppressed “can speak and know their conditions” that leads Spivak to formulate her famous question, “can the subaltern speak?” (78). If, as Spivak goes on to suggest, the subaltern can not speak, then the “subaltern as female is even more deeply in shadow” (83). Drawing on the example of the British banning the practice of sati in colonial India, Spivak suggests that the subaltern cannot speak because she is caught between imperialist discourse and patriarchal traditionalism, neither of which enables her to voice her experience: “Between patriarchy and imperialism, subject-constitution and object-formation, the figure of the woman disappears, not into a pristine nothingness, but into a violent shuttling which is the displaced figuration of the ‘third world woman’ caught between tradition and modernization” (102). In other words, there is no space from which the subaltern as female can speak and no way she can be heard or read.

Another emblematic text in postcolonial feminism is Chandra Talpade Mohanty's “Under Western Eyes” (1988). Mohanty's essay is framed as a critique of Western feminist analyses of “Third World Women” for their reductive and overly simplistic understandings of power and oppression. In such discourses, as Mohanty explains, “power is automatically defined in binary terms: people who have it (read: men) and people who do not (read: women). Men exploit, women are exploited. Such simplistic formulations are historically reductive; they are also ineffectual in designing strategies to combat oppressions” (73). By contrast, Mohanty calls for an intersectional understanding of power that refuses to homogenize or falsely universalize women's experience: “the…homogenization of class, race, religion, and daily material practices of women in the Third World can create a false sense of the commonality of oppressions, interests, and struggles between and among women globally. Beyond sisterhood there are still racism, colonialism, and imperialism” (77). Furthermore, by representing “Third World Women” as mere passive objects or victims of oppression, Western feminists implicitly position themselves as active subjects of resistance and revolutionary agents – which Mohanty calls “the colonialist move” (79).

Much of the agenda for decolonial feminism was set by Lugones in a pair of essays published in Hypatia (2007 and 2010). Building on the work of Anibal Quijano (2000), who argued that racialization is rooted in the structure of colonial capitalism, Lugones contends that gender itself is “a colonial concept and mode of organization of relations of production, property relations, of cosmologies and ways of knowing” (2007, 186). Seeing gender as a colonial concept enables feminists to break out of the ahistorical framework of patriarchy. As she explains: “To understand the relation of the birth of the colonial/modern gender system to the birth of global colonial capitalism–with the centrality of the coloniality of power to that system of global power–is to understand our present organization of life anew” (2007, 187). Lugones's decolonial feminist framework combines the insights of intersectionality theory with Quijano’s understanding of the coloniality of power (2007, 187–88). This brings into focus what Lugones calls the “modern/colonial gender system” (2007, 189), a system that is characterized by strict sexual dimorphism and presumed correspondence between biological sex and gender. In the later essay, Lugones simplifies her formulation somewhat: “I call the analysis of racialized, capitalist, gender oppression ”the coloniality of gender.“ I call the possibility of overcoming the coloniality of gender ”decolonial feminism“” (2010, 747).

Although most of the approaches to dominaiton discussed above have been informed by the Continental philosophical tradition, analytic feminists have made important contributions to the feminist literature on domination as well. For example, Ann Cudd (2006) draws on the framework of rational choice theory to analyze oppression (for related work on rational choice theory and power, see Dowding 2001 and 2009; for critical discussion, see Allen 2008c).

Cudd defines oppression in terms of four conditions: 1) the group condition, which states that individuals are subjected to unjust treatment because of their membership (or ascribed membership) in certain social groups (Cudd 2006, 21); 2) the harm condition, which stipulates that individuals are systematically and unfairly harmed as a result of such membership (Cudd 2006, 21); 3) the coercion condition, which specifies that the harms that those individuals suffer are brought about through unjustified coercion (Cudd 2006, 22); and 4) the privilege condition, which states that such coercive, group-based harms count as oppression only when there exist other social groups who derive a reciprocal privilege or benefit from that unjust harm (Cudd 2006, 22–23). Cudd then defines oppression as “an objective social phenomenon” characterized by these four conditions (Cudd 2006, 23).

As Cudd sees it, the most difficult and interesting question that an analysis of oppression must confront is the “endurance question: how does oppression endure over time in spite of humans’ rough natural equality?” (Cudd 2006, 25). Any satisfactory answer to this question must draw on a combination of empirical, social-scientific research and normative philosophical theorizing, inasmuch as a theory of oppression is an explanatory theory of a normative concept (Cudd 2006, 26). (That oppression is a normative – rather than a purely descriptive – concept is evident from the fact that it is defined as an unjust or unfair set of power relations). Cudd argues that social-theoretical frameworks such as functionalism, psychoanalysis, and evolutionary psychology are inadequate for theorizing oppression (Cudd 2006, 39–45). Structural rational choice theory, in her view, best meets reasonable criteria of explanatory adequacy and therefore provides the best social-theoretical framework for analyzing oppression. By appealing to a structural theory of rational choice, Cudd’s analysis of oppression avoids relying on assumptions about the psychology of individual agents. Rather, as Cudd puts it, “the structural theory of rational choice assesses the objective social rewards and penalties that are consequent on” the interactions and social status of specific group members and “uses these assessments to impute preferences and beliefs to individuals based purely on their social group memberships” (Cudd 2006, 45). But, as a structural theory of rational choice , the framework assumes “that agents behave rationally in the sense that they choose actions that maximize their (induced) expected utilities” (Cudd 2006, 46). In other words, structural rational choice theory models human actions as “(basically instrumentally rational) individual choice constrained within socially structured payoffs” (Cudd 2006, 37). When utilized to analyze oppression, structural rational choice theory suggests that the key to answering the endurance question lies in the fact that “the oppressed are co-opted through their own short-run rational choices to reinforce the long-run oppression of their social group” (Cudd 2006, 21–22).

Sally Haslanger’s work on gender and racial oppression, like Cudd’s, is heavily informed by the tools of analytic philosophy, though Haslanger also situates her work within the tradition of Critical Theory (see Haslanger 2012, 22–30). Haslanger distinguishes between two kinds of cases of oppression: agent oppression, in which “a person or persons (the oppressor(s)) inflicts harm upon another (the oppressed) wrongfully or unjustly” (314) and structural oppression, in which “the oppression is not an individual wrong but a social/political wrong; that is, it is a problem lying in our collective arrangements, an injustice in our practices or institutions” (314). Having made this distinction, Haslanger then argues for a mixed analysis of oppression that does not attempt to reduce agent oppression to structural oppression or vice versa. The danger of reducing structural oppression to agent oppression – what Haslanger calls the individualistic approach to oppression – is that doing so fails to acknowledge that “sometimes structures themselves, not individuals are the problem” (320). The danger of reducing agent oppression to structural oppression – what Haslanger calls the institutionalist approach – is that such an approach “fails to distinguish those who abuse their power to do wrong and those who are privileged but do not exploit their power” (320). Haslanger’s mixed approach, by contrast, is “attentive simultaneously [and, we might add, non-reductively] to both agents and structures” (11).

Haslanger also connects her account of structural domination and oppression to her analysis of gender. Haslanger offers what she calls a “focal analysis” of gender, according to which the core of gender is “the pattern of social relations that constitute the social classes of men as dominant and women as subordinate” (228). Other things – such as norms, identities, symbols, etc – are then gendered in relation to those social relations. On her analysis, gender categories are defined in terms of how one is socially positioned with respect to a broad complex of oppressive relations between groups that are distinguished from one another by means of sexual difference (see 229–230). As Haslanger explains, the “background idea” informing this account of gender is “that women are oppressed , and that they are oppressed as women ” (231).

By claiming that women are oppressed as women, Haslanger reiterates an earlier claim made by radical feminists such as Catharine MacKinnon (see, for example, MacKinnon 1987, 56–57). Indeed, Haslanger’s analysis is heavily indebted to MacKinnon’s work (see Haslanger 2012, 35–82), though she does not endorse MacKinnon’s strong claims about the link between objectivity and masculinity, nor does she adopt a dyadic (or, to use Haslanger’s terminology, reductively agent focused) understanding of oppression. But, like MacKinnon, Haslanger believes that “gender categories are defined relationally – one is a woman (or a man) by virtue of one’s position in a system of social relations” (58). This means that “one’s gender is an extrinsic property, and…it is not necessary that we each have the gender we now have, or that we have any gender at all” (58). Since the social relations in terms of which gender categories are defined are relations of hierarchical domination and structural oppression, “gender is, by definition, hierarchical: Those who function socially as men have power over those who function socially as women” (61). As Haslanger admits, referencing the sex/gender distinction, this does not mean that all males have power over all females – but it does mean that females who are not subordinated by males are not, strictly speaking, women, and vice versa. Moreover, as Haslanger notes, “MacKinnon’s account of gender, like others that define gender hierarchically, has the consequence that feminism aims to undermine the very distinction it depends upon. If feminism is successful, there will no longer be a gender distinction as such” because the complex of social relations of domination and structural oppression that give gender its meaning will no longer exist (62). While endorsing MacKinnon’s radical conclusion with respect to the currently existing gender categories of ‘man’ and ‘woman’, Haslanger’s own account offers a somewhat more nuanced view that allows for the future possibility of a kind of gender difference that would not be predicted on gender dominance: “gender can be fruitfully understood as a higher order genus that includes not only the hierarchical social positions of man and woman, but potentially other non-hierarchical social positions defined in part by reference to reproductive function. I believe gender as we know it takes hierarchical forms as men and women; but the theoretical move of treating men and women as only two kinds of gender provides resources for thinking about other (actual) genders, and the political possibility of constructing non-hierarchical genders” (235)

Up to this point, this entry has focused on power understood in terms of an oppressive or unjust power-over relationship. I have used the term “domination” to refer to such relationships, though some of the theorists discussed above prefer the terms “oppression” or “subjection,” and others refer to this phenomenon simply as “power.” However, a significant strand of feminist theorizing of power starts with the contention that the conception of power as power-over, domination, or control is implicitly masculinist. In order to avoid such masculinist connotations, many feminists from a variety of theoretical backgrounds have argued for a reconceptualization of power as a capacity or ability, specifically, the capacity to empower or transform oneself and others. Thus, these feminists have tended to understood power not as power-over but as power-to. Wartenberg (1990) argues that this feminist understanding of power, which he calls transformative power, is actually a type of power-over, albeit one that is distinct from domination because it aims at empowering those over whom it is exercised. However, most of the feminists who embrace this transformative or empowerment-based conception of power explicitly define it as an ability or capacity and present it as an alternative to putatively masculine notions of power-over. Thus, in what follows, I will follow their usage rather than Wartenberg’s.

For example, Jean Baker Miller claims that “women’s examination of power…can bring new understanding to the whole concept of power” (Miller 1992, 241). Miller rejects the definition of power as domination; instead, she defines it as “the capacity to produce a change – that is, to move anything from point A or state A to point B or state B” (Miller 1992, 241). Miller suggests that power understood as domination is particularly masculine; from women’s perspective, power is understood differently: “there is enormous validity in women’s not wanting to use power as it is presently conceived and used. Rather, women may want to be powerful in ways that simultaneously enhance, rather than diminish, the power of others” (Miller 1992, 247–248).

Similarly, Virginia Held argues against the masculinist conception of power as “the power to cause others to submit to one’s will, the power that led men to seek hierarchical control and…contractual constraints” (Held 1993, 136). Held views women’s unique experiences as mothers and caregivers as the basis for new insights into power; as she puts it, “the capacity to give birth and to nurture and empower could be the basis for new and more humanly promising conceptions than the ones that now prevail of power, empowerment, and growth” (Held 1993, 137). According to Held, “the power of a mothering person to empower others, to foster transformative growth, is a different sort of power from that of a stronger sword or a dominant will” (Held 1993, 209). On Held’s view, a feminist analysis of society and politics leads to an understanding of power as the capacity to transform and empower oneself and others.

This conception of power as transformative and empowering is also a prominent theme in lesbian feminism and ecofeminism. For example, Sarah Lucia Hoagland is critical of the masculine conception of power with its focus on “state authority, police and armed forces, control of economic resources, control of technology, and hierarchy and chain of command” (Hoagland 1988, 114). Instead, Hoagland defines power as “power-from-within” which she understands as “the power of ability, of choice and engagement. It is creative; and hence it is an affecting and transforming power but not a controlling power” (Hoagland 1988, 118). Similarly, Starhawk claims that she is “on the side of the power that emerges from within, that is inherent in us as the power to grow is inherent in the seed” (Starhawk 1987, 8). For both Hoagland and Starhawk, power-from-within is a positive, life-affirming, and empowering force that stands in stark contrast to power understood as domination, control or imposing one’s will on another.

A similar understanding of power can also be found in the work of the prominent French feminists Luce Irigaray and Hélène Cixous. Irigaray, for example, urges feminists to question the definition of power in phallocratic cultures, for if feminists “aim simply for a change in the distribution of power, leaving intact the power structure itself, then they are resubjecting themselves, deliberately or not, to a phallocratic order” (Irigaray 1985, 81), that is, to a discursive and cultural order that privileges the masculine, represented by the phallus. If we wish to subvert the phallocratic order, according to Irigaray, we will have to reject “a definition of power of the masculine type” (Irigaray 1985, 81). Some feminists interpret Irigaray’s work on sexual difference as suggesting an alternative conception of power as transformative, a conception that is grounded in a specifically feminine economy (see Irigaray 1981 and Kuykendall 1983). Similarly, Cixous claims that “les pouvoirs de la femme” do not consist in mastering or exercising power over others, but instead are a form of “power over oneself” (Cixous 1977, 483–84).

Along similar lines, Nancy Hartsock refers to the understanding of power “as energy and competence rather than dominance” as “the feminist theory of power” (Hartsock 1983, 224). Hartsock argues that precursors of this theory can be found in the work of some women who did not consider themselves to be feminists – most notably, Hannah Arendt, whose rejection of the command-obedience model of power and definition of ‘power’ as “the human ability not just to act but to act in concert” overlaps significantly with the feminist conception of power as empowerment (1970, 44). Arendt’s definition of ‘power’ brings out another aspect of the definition of ‘power’ as empowerment because of her focus on community or collective empowerment (on the relationship between power and community, see Hartsock 1983, 1996). This aspect of empowerment is evident in Mary Parker Follett’s distinction between power-over and power-with; for Follett, power-with is a collective ability that is a function of relationships of reciprocity between members of a group (Follett 1942). Hartsock finds it significant that the theme of power as capacity or empowerment has been so prominent in the work of women who have written about power. In her view, this points in the direction of a feminist standpoint that “should allow us to understand why the masculine community constructed…power, as domination, repression, and death, and why women’s accounts of power differ in specific and systematic ways from those put forward by men….such a standpoint might allow us to put forward an understanding of power that points in more liberatory directions” (Hartsock 1983, 226).

The notion of empowerment has also been taken up widely by advocates of so-called “power feminism.” A reaction against a perceived over-emphasis on women’s victimization and oppression in feminism of the 1980s, power feminism emerged in the 1990s in the writings of feminists such as Camille Paglia, Katie Roiphe, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Naomi Wolf. Although this movement has had more influence in mainstream media and culture than in academia – indeed, in many ways it can be read as a critique of academic feminism – it has also sparked scholarly debate. As Mary Caputi argues in her book Feminism and Power: The Need for Critical Theory (2013), power feminists reject not only the excessive focus on women’s victimization but also the claim, made by earlier empowerment theorists, that women are “sensitive creatures given more to a caring, interconnected web of human relationships than to the rugged individualism espoused by men” (Caputi 2013, 4). In contrast, power feminists endorse a more individualistic, self-assertive, even aggressive conception of empowerment, one that tends to define empowerment in terms of individual choice with little concern for the contexts within which choices are made or the options from which women are able to choose. Caputi argues that power feminism relies on and mimetically reproduces a problematically masculinist conception of power, one “enthralled by the display of ‘power over’ rather than ‘power with’…” (Caputi 2013, xv). As she puts it: “feminism must query the uncritical endorsement of an empowerment aligned with a masculinist will to power, and disown the tough, sassy, self-assured but unthinking ‘feminist’” (Caputi 2013, 17). Because of its tendency to mimic an individualistic, sovereign, and masculinist conception of power over, power feminism, according to Caputi, “does little, if anything, to rethink our conception of power” (Caputi 2013, 89). In order to prompt such a rethinking, Caputi turns to the resources of the early Frankfurt School of critical theory and to the work of Jacques Derrida.

Serene Khader’s Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment offers another rethinking of empowerment in feminist theory. Focusing on empowerment in the context of international development practice, Khader develops a deliberative perfectionist account of adaptive preferences. Rather than defining adaptive preferences in terms of autonomy deficits, Khader defines them as preferences “inconsistent with basic flourishing…that are formed under conditions nonconductive to basic flourishing and…that we believe people might be persuaded to transform upon normative scrutiny of their preferences and exposure to conditions more conducive to flourishing” (Khader 2011, 42). The perfectionism in her account leads her to emphasize the distinction between merely adaptive preferences – those formed through adaptation to existing social conditions – and what she calls “inappropriately adaptive preferences” (IAPs) – preferences that are adaptive to bad or oppressive social conditions and that are harmful to those who adopt them (52–53). She also insists that IAPs are most often selective rather than global self-entitlement deficits (109), which means that they impact individuals’ sense of their own worth or entitlement to certain goods not globally but rather in particular domains and contexts and in relation to certain specific individuals or groups. This allows her to acknowledge the psychological effects of oppression working through the mechanism of IAPs without denying the possibility of agency on the part of the oppressed.

Khader draws on her deliberative perfectionist account of IAPs to diagnose and move beyond certain controversies over the notion of empowerment that have emerged in feminist development practice and theorizing. As the concept of women’s empowerment has become central to international development practice, feminists have raised concerns about the ideological effects of this shift. While acknowledging that the language of empowerment in development practice can have ideological effects, Khader addresses these concerns by providing a clearer conception of empowerment than the one implicit in the development literature and emphasizing what she understands as the normative core of this concept, its relation to human flourishing. She defines empowerment as the “ process of overcoming one or many IAPs through processes that enhance some element of a person’s concept of self-entitlement and increase her capacity to pursue her own flourishing ” (Khader 2011, 176). This definition of empowerment enables her to rethink certain dilemmas of empowerment that have emerged in development theory and practices. For example, many development practitioners define empowerment in terms of choice, and then struggle to make sense of apparently self-subordinating choices. If choice equals empowerment, then does this mean that the choice to subordinate or disempower oneself is an instance of empowerment? Khader’s finely grained analysis provides an elegant way out of this dilemma by emphasizing the conditions under which choices are made and the tradeoffs among different domains or aspects of flourishing that these conditions may necessitate. Discussing a case of young women in Tanzania who chose to undergo clitoridectomy after receiving education about the practice aimed at empowering them, Khader writes: “Are the young women who choose clitoridectomy disempowered because they have few options for unambiguously pursuing their flourishing or are they empowered because they have exercised agential capacities by making a choice? My analysis of IAP allows us to say both” (187). For Khader, empowerment is a messy, complex, and incremental concept. Her analysis of empowerment enables us to see that “self-subordinating choices can have selective empowering effects under disempowering conditions” (189). But the normative core of her account, its deliberative perfectionism, insists that “a situation where one cannot seek one’s basic flourishing across multiple domains is a tragic one” (189).

The concept of power is central to a wide variety of debates in feminist philosophy. Indeed, the very centrality of this concept to feminist theorizing creates difficulties in writing an entry such as this one: since the concept of power is operative on one way or another in almost all work in feminist theory, it is extremely difficult to place limits on the relevant sources. Throughout, I have emphasized those texts and debates in which the concept of power is a central theme, even if sometimes an implicit one. I have also prioritized those authors and texts that have been most influential within feminist philosophy, as opposed to the wider terrain of feminist theory or gender studies, though I acknowledge that this distinction is difficult to maintain and perhaps not always terribly useful. Debatable as such framing choices may be, they do offer some much needed help in delimiting the range of relevant sources and providing focus and structure to the discussion.

Ahmed, Sara, 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others , Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Alcoff, Linda, 1990. “Feminist Politics and Foucault: The Limits to a Collaboration,” in Arlene Dallery and Charles Scott (eds.), Crises in Continental Philosophy , Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Allen, Amy, 1996. “Foucault on Power: A Theory for Feminists,” in Susan Hekman (ed.), Feminist Interpretations of Michel Foucault , University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
–––, 1998. “Rethinking Power,” Hypatia , 13: 21–40.
–––, 1999. The Power of Feminist Theory: Domination, Resistance, Solidarity , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
–––, 2008a. The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory , New York: Columbia University Press.
–––, 2008b. “Power and the Politics of Difference: Oppression, Empowerment, and Transnational Justice,” Hypatia , 23(3): 156–172.
–––, 2008c. “Rationalizing Oppression,” Journal of Power , 1(1): 51–65.
Al-Saji, Alia, 2010. “Bodies and Sensings: On the Uses of Husserlian Phenomenology for Feminist Theory,” Continental Philosophy Review , 43(1): 13–37.
Anzaldúa, Gloria, 1987, Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza , San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.
Arendt, Hannah, 1958. The Human Condition , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
–––, 1970. On Violence , New York: Harcourt Brace & Co..
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S., 1962. “The Two Faces of Power,” American Political Science Review , 56: 941–52.
Bartky, Sandra, 1990. Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression , New York: Routledge.
–––, 2002. “Sympathy and Solidarity” and Other Essays , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Beauvoir, Simone de, 1974. The Second Sex , New York: Vintage Books.
Benhabib, Seyla, 1992. Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics , New York: Routledge.
Benhabib, Seyla, Judith Butler, Drucilla Cornell, and Nancy Fraser, 1995. Feminist Contentions: A Philosophical Exchange , Linda Nicholson (ed.). New York: Routledge.
Bhambra, Gurminder, 2014. “Postcolonial and decolonial dialogues,” Postcolonial Studies , 17(2): 115–121.
Bhattacharya, Tithi (ed.), 2017. “Introduction: Mapping Social Reproduction Theory,” in Bhattacharya (ed.), Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression , London: Pluto Press.
Bordo, Susan, 1993. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Brown, Wendy, 1988. Manhood and Politics: A Feminist Reading in Political Theory , Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.
–––, 1995. “The Mirror of Pornography,” in States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Butler, Judith, 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity , New York: Routledge.
–––, 1993. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’ , New York: Routledge.
–––, 1997a. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative , New York: Routledge.
–––, 1997b. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection , Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Caputi, Mary, 2013. Feminism and Power: The Need for Critical Theory , Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Carastathis, Anna, 2013. “Basements and Intersections” Hypatia , 28(4): 698–715.
–––, 2014. “Reinvigorating Intersectionality as a Provisional Concept,” in Goswami, O’Donovan and Yount (eds.), Why Race and Gender Still Matter: An Intersectional Approach , New York: Routledge.
Cixous, Hélène, 1977. “Entrieten avec Françoise van Rossum-Guyon,” Revue des sciences humaines , 168: 479–493.
Clegg, Stewart, 1989. Frameworks of Power , London: Sage.
Collins, Patricia Hill, 2011. “Piecing Together a Genealogical Puzzle: Intersectionality and American Pragmatism,” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy , 3(2): 88–112.
–––, 2019. Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory , Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Collins, Patricia Hill, et al ., 2002. “Symposium on West and Fenstermaker’s ‘Doing Difference’,” in Sarah Fenstermaker and Candace West (eds.), Doing Gender, Doing Difference , New York: Routledge.
Combahee River Collective, 1981. “A Black Feminist Statement (1977),” in Cherrie Moraga and Glora Anzaldua (eds.), This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color , New York: Kitchen Table/Women of Color Press.
Connolly, William, 1993. The Terms of Political Discourse (third edition), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cooper, Brittney, 2016. “Intersectionality,” in Lisa Disch and Mary Hawkesworth (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crenshaw, Kimberle, 1991a. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory, and Antiracist Politics,” in Katharine T. Barlett and Rosanne Kennedy (eds.), Feminist Legal Theory: Readings in Law and Gender , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
–––, 1991b. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review , 43(6): 1241–1299.
Cudd, Ann, 2006. Analyzing Oppression , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahl, Robert, 1957. “The Concept of Power,” Behavioral Science , 2: 201–15.
Davis, Angela, 1983. Women, Race and Class , New York: Vintage.
Diamond, Irene and Lee Quinby (eds.), 1988. Feminism and Foucault: Reflections on Resistance , Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Dowding, Keith, 2001. “Rational Choice Approaches to Analyzing Power,” in Nash and Scott (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology , Oxford: Blackwell.
–––, 2009. “Rational Choice Approaches,” in Clegg and Haugaard (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Power , London: Sage.
Eisenstein, Zillah, 1979. “Developing a Theory of Capitalist Patriarchy,” in Eisenstein (ed.), Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism , New York: Monthly Review Press.
Feder, Ellen, 2007. Family Bonds: Genealogies of Race and Gender , New York: Oxford University Press.
Federici, Silvia, 1975. Wages Against Housework , Bristol: Falling Wall Press.
–––, 2014. Caliban and the Witch: Women, the Body, and Primitive Accumulation , Brooklyn: Autonomedia.
–––, 2019. “Social Reproduction Theory: History, Issues and Present Challenges,” Radical Philosophy , 2(4): 55–57.
Fisher, Linda, and Lester Embree (eds.), 2000. Feminist Phenomenology , Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Firestone, Shulamith, 1970. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution , New York: William Morrow and Company.
Follett, Mary Parker, 1942. “Power,” in Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett , Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick (eds.). New York: Harper.
Foucault, Michel, 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison , trans. Alan Sheridan, New York: Vintage.
–––, 1979. The History of Sexuality , Volume 1: An Introduction , trans. Robert Hurley, New York: Vintage.
–––, 1980. “Two Lectures”in Colin Gordon (ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977 , New York: Pantheon.
–––, 1983. “Afterword: The Subject and Power” in Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics , 2nd edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fraser, Nancy, 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory , Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
–––, 1993. “Beyond the Master/Subject Model: Reflections on Carole Pateman’s Sexual Contract,” Social Text , 37: 173–181.
–––, 1996. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition , New York: Routledge.
–––, 2013. Fortunes of Feminism: From State Managed Capitailsm to Neoliberal Crisis , London: Verso.
Fraser, Nancy and Rahel Jaeggi, 2018. Capitalism: A Conversation in Critical Theory , Cambridge: Polity Press.
Frye, Marilyn, 1983. The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory , Freedom, California; The Crossing Press.
Garry, Ann, 2011. “Intersectionality, Metaphors, and the Multiplicity of Gender,” Hypatia , 26(4): 826–850.
Gines, Kathryn T. (now Kathryn Sophia Belle), 2010. “Sartre, Beauvoir, and the Race/Gender Analogy: A Case for Black Feminist Philosophy,” in Maria del Guadalupe Davidson, Kathryn T. Gines, and Donna-Dale Marcano (eds.), Convergences: Black Feminism and Continental Philosophy , Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
–––, 2014a. “Comparative and Competing Frameworks of Oppression in Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex ,” Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal , 35 (1–2): 251–273.
–––, 2014b. “Race Women, Race Men and Early Expressions of Proto-Intersectionality, 1930s-1930s,” in Goswami, O’Donovan, and Yount (eds.), Why Race and Gender Still Matter: An Intersectional Approach , New York: Routledge.
–––, 2017. “Simone de Beauvoir and the Race/Gender Analogy in The Second Sex Revisited,” in Nancy Bauer and Laura Hengehold (eds.), A Companion to Simone de Beauvoir , Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Goswami, Namita, Maeve M. O’Donovan and Lisa Yount (eds.), 2014. Why Race and Gender Still Matter: An Intersectional Approach , New York: Routledge.
Habermas, Jürgen, 1994. “Hannah Arendt’s Communications Concept of Power,” in Lewis P. Hinchman and Sandra K. Hinchman (eds.), Hannah Arendt: Critical Essays , Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Hartmann, Heidi, 1980. “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Toward a More Progressive Union,” in Lydia Sargent (ed.), Women and Revolution , Boston: South End Press.
Hartsock, Nancy, 1983. Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism , Boston: Northeastern University Press.
–––, 1990. “Foucault on Power: A Theory for Women?” in Linda Nicholson (ed.), Feminism/Postmodernism , New York: Routledge.
–––, 1996. “Community/Sexuality/Gender: Rethinking Power,” in Nancy J. Hirschmann and Christine Di Stefano (eds.), Revisioning the Political: Feminist Reconstructions of Traditional Concepts in Western Political Theory , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Haslanger, Sally, 2012. Resisting Reality: Social Construction and Social Critique , New York: Oxford University Press.
Haugaard, Mark, 2010. “Power: A ‘Family Resemblance’ Concept,” European Journal of Cultural Studies , 13(4): 419–438.
–––, 2020. The Four Dimensions of Power: Understanding Domination, Empowerment and Democracy , Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Heinamaa, Sara, 2003. Toward a Phenomenology of Sexual Difference: Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Beauvoir , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Heinamaa, Sara and Lanei Rodemeyer (eds.), 2010. Feminist Phenomenologies : Special Issue of Continental Philosophy Review , 43(1): 1–140.
Hekman, Susan (ed.), 1996. Feminist Interpretations of Michel Foucault , University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Held, Virginia, 1993. Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society, and Politics , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heyes, Cressida, 2007. Self-Transformations: Foucault, Ethics, and Normalized Bodies , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoagland, Sarah Lucia, 1988. Lesbian Ethics: Toward a New Value , Palo Alto: Institute of Lesbian Studies.
Hobbes, Thomas, 1985 (1641). Leviathan , New York: Penguin Books.
hooks, bell, 1981. Ain’t I a Woman? Black Women and Feminism , Boston: South End Press.
Huffer, Lynne, 2013. Are the Lips a Grave? A Queer Feminist on the Ethics of Sex , New York: Columbia University Press.
Irigaray, Luce, 1981. “And the One Doesn’t Stir Without the Other,” trans. Hélène Vivienne Wenzel. Signs , 7(1): 60–67.
–––, 1985. This Sex Which Is Not One , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Khader, Serene, 2011. Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment , New York: Oxford University Press.
Kruks, Sonia, 2001. Retrieving Experience: Subjectivity and Recognition in Feminist Politics , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kuykendall, Eléanor H., 1983. “Toward an Ethic of Nurturance: Lluce Irigaray on Mothering and Power,” in Joyce Trebillcot (ed.), Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory , Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Langton, Rae, 2009. Sexual Solipsism: Philosophical Essays on Pornography and Objectification , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lorde, Audre, 1984. Sister/Outsider: Essays and Speeches by Audre Lorde , Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.
Lugones, María, 2003. Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes: Theorizing Coalition against Multiple Oppressions , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
–––, 2007. “Heterosexualism and the Colonial/Modern Gender System,” Hypatia , 22 (1): 186–209.
–––, 2010. “Toward a Decolonial Feminism,” Hypatia , 25: (4): 742–759
Lukes, Steven, 1974. Power: A Radical View , London: Macmillan.
–––, 1986. “Introduction” in Steven Lukes (ed.), Power , Oxford: Blackwell.
–––, 2005. Power: A Radical View , 2nd expanded edition. London: Macmillan.
MacKinnon, Catharine, 1987. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
–––, 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McCall, Leslie, 2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society , 30(3): 1771–1800.
McLaren, Margaret, 2002. Feminism, Foucault, and Embodied Subjectivity , Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
McNay, Lois, 1992. Foucault and Feminism: Power, Gender, and the Self , Boston: Northeastern University Press.
McWhorter, Ladelle, 1999. Bodies and Pleasures: Foucault and the Politics of Sexual Normalization , Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
–––. 2009. Racism and Sexual Oppression in Anglo-America: A Genealogy , Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Mezzadri, Alessandra, 2019. “On the Value of Social Reproduction,” Radical Philosophy , 2(4): 33–41.
Mies, Maria, 1986. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labor , London: Zed Books.
Mill, John Stuart, 1970. “The Subjection of Women” in Alice Rossi (ed.), Essays on Sex Equality , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miller, Jean Baker, 1992. “Women and Power” in Thomas Wartenberg (ed.), Rethinking Power , Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade, 1988. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” Feminist Review , 30: 61–88.
Morriss, Peter, 2002. Power: A Philosophical Analysis , 2nd edition. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Nash, Jennifer, 2008. “Re-thinking Intersectionality.” Feminist Review , 89: 1–15.
–––, 2019. Black Feminism Reimagined: After Intersectionality , Durham, NC: Duke University Presss.
Okin, Susan Moller, 1989. Justice, Gender and the Family , New York: Basic Books.
Oksala, Johanna, 2005. Foucault on Freedom , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2016. Feminist Experiences: Foucauldian and Phenomenological Investigations , Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Ortega, Mariana, 2016. In-Between: Latina Feminist Phenomenology, Multiplicity, and the Self , Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Pateman, Carole, 1988. The Sexual Contract , Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Pateman, Carole, and Charles Mills, 2007. Contract and Domination , Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, 1972. Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Puar, Jasbir, 2007. Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times , Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
–––, 2012. “‘I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess’: Becoming-Intersectional in Assemblage Theory,” PhiloSOPHIA , 2(1): 49–66.
Quijano, Anibal, 2000. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America,” Nepantla: Views from South , 1(3): 533–580.
Ramamurthy, Priti and Ashwini Tambe, 2017. “Preface,” in Decolonial and Postcolonial Approaches: A Dialogue , Special Issue of Feminist Studies , 43(3): 503–511.
Ramazanoglu, Caroline (ed.), 1993. Up Against Foucault: Explorations of some tensions between Foucault and feminism , New York: Routledge.
Rubin, Gayle, 1976. “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex,” in Rayna Reiter (ed.), Toward an Anthropology of Women , New York: Monthly Review Press.
Ruíz, Elena, 2021. “Postcolonial and Decolonial Theories,” in Kim Q. Hall and Ásta (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saar, Martin, 2010. “Power and Critique,” Journal of Power , 3(1): 7–20.
–––, 2013. Die Immanenz der Macht: Politische Theorie nach Spinoza , Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Said, Edward, 1979. Orientalism , New York: Vintage Books.
–––, 1986. “Foucault and the Imagination of Power,” in David Couzens Hoy (ed.), Foucault: A Critical Reader , Oxford: Blackwell.
Salamon, Gayle, 2010. Assuming a Body: Transgender and the Rhetorics of Materiality , New York: Columbia University Press.
Sawicki, Jana, 1991. Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, Power, and the Body , New York: Routledge.
Sheth, Falguni, 2014. “Interstitiality: Making Space for Migration, Diaspora, and Racial Complexity,” Hypatia , 29(1): 75–93.
Simons, Margaret, 2002. “Beauvoir and the Problem of Racism,” in Julie K. Ward and Tommy L. Lott (eds.), Philosophers on Race: Critical Essays , Oxford: Blackwell.
Spinoza, Benedict de, 2002a. “Theological-political Treatise,” in M. L. Morgan (ed.), Complete Works , Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 383–583.
–––, 2002b. “Political Treatise,” in M. L. Morgan (ed), Complete Works , Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 676–754.
Spivak, Gayatri, 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?”in C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture , Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Starhawk, 1987. Truth or Dare: Encounters with Power, Authority, and Mystery , San Francisco: Harper.
Wartenberg, Thomas, 1990. The Forms of Power: From Domination to Transformation , Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Weber, Max, 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology , trans. Ephraim Fischoff et al., Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Weiss, Gail, 1999. Body Images: Embodiment as Intercorporeality , New York: Routledge.
Yeatmann, Anna, 1997. “Feminism and Power,” in Mary Lyndon Shanley and Uma Narayan (eds.), Reconstructing Political Theory: Feminist Perspectives , University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Young, Iris Marion, 1990a. Justice and the Politics of Difference , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–––, 1990b. Throwing Like a Girl And Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy and Social Theory , Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
–––, 1992. “Five Faces of Oppression” in Thomas Wartenberg (ed.), Rethinking Power , Albany: State University of New York Press.
Zack, Naomi, 2005. Inclusive Feminism: A Third Wave Theory of Women’s Commonality , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

India’s Largest Career Transformation Portal

Knowledge Is Power Essay for Students in English [Easy Words]

January 10, 2021 by Sandeep

Essay on Knowledge Is Power: The greatest distinguishing factor between humans and animals is intelligence and knowledge. Education and knowledge are two entirely different things. Learning combined with experience and wisdom is collectively called knowledge. A person may be well educated and learned but may not have the required knowledge in a particular field. Good knowledge helps us identify the good from the bad and makes us intellectually strong.

Essay on Knowledge Is Power 500 Words in English

We have provided Knowledge Is Power Essay in English, suitable for class 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10.

“An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest” ~ Ben Franklin.

The presence of knowledge is crucial in our life. It is undoubtedly considered one of the most powerful entities in this world. Knowledge can be utilized to serve both positive and negative needs. It has the capability of creating lives. At the same time, it has much potential for destruction as well. Knowledge is the sole differentiator between humans and animals. We should use it for productive purposes like helping our community and nation.

What is Knowledge?

Knowledge can be referred to as the state of understanding or awareness. This understanding can be in the form of facts, wisdom, information, or skill, and it is usually acquired from a previous study or experience in life. Knowledge helps us become well-informed citizens. It is an ability that we can use to gather useful information and then make rational decisions based on it. The concept of knowledge is so vast that there is no end to it. It keeps on increasing with time. Intellectual processes like perception, logic, and communication are crucial for gaining knowledge.

Why is Knowledge Powerful?

“Knowledge is Power” is one of the most popular phrases in time. It was first used by Francis Bacon. The proverb means knowledge is all-powerful, and it can conquer the entire world. It empowers us with strength and makes us fearless. The more knowledge you gather, the better you will be in controlling your life situations. Knowledge and Power always go hand in hand. One of the classic examples is the story of America. What made America the most powerful nation in this world? We should be thinking about why it became a superpower in the first place.

America became a superpower because of its surplus natural resources and inventive measures. These inventions and resources were not a representation of luck. Rather, these people established a strong foundation of education. Education made them experiment, and experimentation promotes knowledge. This benefited their society and made them powerful enough to compete with the rest of the world. Hence, it would be correct to say that knowledge provides power, and power passes on knowledge.

Benefits of Knowledge

Not all people are knowledgeable. You need to earn knowledge as it cannot be bought. It is more important than all other riches. You can only measure its power if you are aware of its benefits. So let us take a look at some of these benefits of knowledge.

The more you share your knowledge with others, the more it increases.
It helps us become successful in our life. The power of knowledge is even more vital in this fast-paced world.
One must not only possess knowledge but also be aware of how to use it efficiently.
Learning is essential for progress and growth. Knowledge is a major contributor to personality development.
It hones our decision-making skills by helping us choose between right and wrong.
It boosts our confidence by encouraging us to defeat our weaknesses.
It brings a positive change in our society. Moreover, the development of our nation is dependent on the power of knowledge.
Knowledge inculcates critical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving attitude in us.
It helps us in our day to day chores, and it also shapes our future.

Your browser is ancient! Upgrade to a different browser or install Google Chrome Frame to experience this site.

organizing people for stronger communities

What is power, and how can it be used for the common good.

An essay by Robert Linthicum, ICON

The Nature of Power

What is power? Power is the capacity, ability and willingness to act! Every word in that definition is important for an adequate understanding of power.

First, power is the capacity to act. “Capacity” means, “the facility to produce, perform or deploy”. For a group to have the capacity to act means that they have developed or gathered the resources together in order to exercise power. A military illustration makes the concept of capacity clear. If a military unit has been issued rifles, but hasn’t been given any ammunition, then they don’t have the capacity to act. Even though they might want to attack the enemy and are expert marksmen, the absence of ammunition means that they don’t have the resources at their disposal that enables them to act.

Second, power is the ability to act. Ability consists of having the skill, aptitude and/or competence to carry out the action one wishes to undertake. Thus, to use our military illustration once again, if one has adequate rifles and ammunition in abundance, but no one in the unit knows how to fire the rifles or can’t hit “the side of a barn”, they don’t have the ability to act. Capacity without ability still creates a powerless situation.

Finally, power is the willingness to act. There must be a resolve and a commitment on the part of the group to act, even if that means taking the risks necessary to act. Thus, if one has sufficient ordinances (capacity) and the skill to use them (ability), but they do not have the resolve or motivation to go into battle, then you would still have a powerless situation.

It takes capacity plus ability plus willingness to act powerfully. And this is as true of individuals or of a community of people as it is true of an organized basketball team or college students or army or even a nation.

Change cannot occur in a city, a neighborhood, a church, a tribe or a nation unless the people and their institutions have developed their capacity, ability and willingness to act. Then – and only then – do they have power!

Now I particularly want you to note that power, as I’ve described it above, is neutral. It is neither good nor evil. What makes power either good or evil is the intent and commitments of those who exercise that power. The motivation and intentions of the person or people holding power determines whether that power will move in evil or transformative directions. Thus, Hitler had the capacity, ability and willingness to act – and he used that capacity, ability and willingness to drag an entire world into war! But a religious leader like Jesus also had the capacity, ability and willingness to act, exercised that power towards individuals, towards his community of disciples and towards the religious-political powers of Israelite society and began a movement that has transformed society and millions of lives for more than two thousand years!

The Two Kinds of Power

There are two essential types of power. One type of power is called unilateral. The other type of power is relational. Both types of power are built by honing the capacity, ability and willingness of its people and institutions to act. Either type of power can be used for good or used for evil – but most often is a mixture of both. But unilateral power primarily organizes institutions and those institutions’ capacity to create and adjudicate laws, use military power, control wealth or act symbolically. Relational power, on the other hand, organizes people and the institutions of people (e.g., churches, clubs, community groups, unions, etc.) to act as one. Thus, one can say that unilateral power is essentially institutional while relational power is built upon the people. Let’s look more thoroughly at these two exercises of power.

Unilateral power is the kind of power that is most often used by large corporations, fiduciary institutions, government and organized religions. Unilateral power is basically “power over” a people. There are two types of unilateral power. Dominating power is the lowest form of power. That is the power exercised by a government or group through the force of guns and physical intimidation. It is the tyrannical use of power — colonial, plantation, paternalistic power. It was dominating unilateral power against which most of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible protested.

A second form of unilateral power is constitutional power. This is a “higher” or more “sophisticated” form of power than dominating power. But it is still essentially unilateral in nature. Constitutional power is power over people as defined by the law rather than defined by force. It tends to be highly structured and hierarchical, with responsibility being delegated by the people to those who hold power. That was the kind of power being exercised by Pilate in his trial of Jesus or by massive business that was so virulently opposed by the recent “Occupy” movement. It might have been unethical and even tyrannical, but it was all perfectly legal!

Under constitutional power, those in power theoretically rule by the consent of the governed and thus are responsible for representing the governed. But, in reality, the governed play little role in the day-to-day operation or influence of the government or of multinational corporations. Thus, in the United States, the people’s responsibility is to vote upon their selection of representatives and to write letters of protest or telephone their protest. But that is what people assume is the limits of participation by the people in the decision-making process.

The other essential type of power is relational power. Whereas unilateral power is “power over” a constituency, relational power is “power with”. Therefore, it is a higher form of participatory power than is either dominating or constitutional power. There are two types of relational power, the first being mutual power. Mutual power exists when two people or groups hold fairly equal power. Rather than trying to enhance their own power at the expense of the other party, however, mutual power will respect each other’s power and position, working together for common objectives. It is therefore a negotiating exercise of power. A biblical example of mutual relational power was the power exercised by David and Jonathan toward each other. Jonathan had power as the son of the king; David’s power was based upon his military acumen and popularity. Both men could have acted destructively toward each other, and Israel would have suffered. Instead, because they loved each other, they used their mutual power to both strengthen and secure Israel.

The second type of relational power is reciprocal power. This is the deepest form of relational power. It is one in which the people understand that both parties or forces can benefit from power decisions if they authentically share decisions. Therefore, reciprocal power is truly shared power, in which each party is of equal strength, is equally participative in the decision-making process, and each commits itself not to its private or exclusive good but to the common good. This was the type of power being presented in Deuteronomy as the base for a relational culture that resulted in justice, an equitable distribution of goods and the elimination of poverty. If power is the ability to get things done, relational power is the capacity to organize people around common values, relationships and issues so that they can bring about the change they desire.

Relational Power in Action

People who act together with relational power operate in significantly different ways to people who don’t know how to use power. The very way you respond to the system in a mutual encounter with them informs them whether or not you and the people possess power (and, therefore, whether they need to pay attention to you or can dismiss you).

For example, people who have built strong relational power with each other will be direct with the leaders of the system they have targeted for action. They will be confrontive in their statement of the issues (but not necessarily nasty) and specific in what they demand of the systems. People who don’t feel powerful, on the other hand, will be vague and abstract, and will preach lofty principles but not specific concrete action. People with power will seek to negotiate; people without power will polarize. Thus, people with power will seek a win-win resolution of the issue (precisely because they negotiate from a powerful position); people without power will seek to destroy the opposition (“win-lose”). People with power, when meeting with the systems, will set the agenda for the discussion; people without power will let the systems set the agenda for them.

In essence, people with power will be extremely realistic in what they are seeking to accomplish, willing to build on little victory after little victory after little victory. People without power, on the other hand, will be idealists who will demand “the whole loaf or none at all”. People with power are always able to accept “half a loaf” (because they have enough power to know that they can be back tomorrow with greater negotiating force to get the other “half”), and are therefore free to compromise, settle and deal. People without power will feel the necessity to fight “to the death” or surrender. Thus, people with power are flexible while people without power are rigid. Finally, people with power will always be accountable for their actions, while those without power will refuse to be accountable to anyone other than themselves.

If any well-meaning people’s institution (like a church or union or community group) wants to make a difference in its city, it will not accomplish this by pontificating on the same from lofty pulpits or by passing resolutions or releasing statements. It will make a difference — and will be respected by the political, economic and values-creating systems and leaders of a city — only as the people use power intelligently. And what does it mean to use power? It means a willingness to work together in a city as one single disciplined body, rather than each people’s institution “doing its own thing” and seeking to grab all the credit. It means being direct, confrontive and specific in its demands upon the systems. It means a willingness to set the agenda rather than reacting to the city’s agenda, being proactive in working for the city’s social righteousness.

It means that it must set and execute its agenda out of its own perceived highest common self-interest in which it also understands both the articulated and unarticulated objectives of the systems. And out of that understanding, the people’s organization (like ICON) must seek a “win-win” resolution in which both the people and the systems benefit by the decision made. To accomplish that win, the entire organized body must be willing to negotiate, settle, deal, compromise, work on details, negotiate and negotiate some more while remaining flexible in the midst of the struggle. It must be realistic in regards to the decisions made and the toll of the struggle. Each member institution of a broad-based organization like ICON must be willing to be accountable to the full organized body for both its actions and its delivery of the commitments it has made. In other words, to be powerful, the people organized in that city must be disciplined! And, finally, for power to be authentically and successfully exercised, the leaders of the people must be able to trust each other, for that is the very essence of relational power!

Relational Power and the Discipline of Community Organizing

The exercise of relational power by any relationally based organization is difficult for it to undertake by itself. The reason why is because we have such little experience in actually exercising it in “the world as it is”. Consequently, to effectively exercise relational power in public life, a group needs to be in relationship with a professional community organizer – someone who has been trained and is deeply experienced in the mobilizing of relational power to enable the people’s institutions to work for significant systemic change in its city or community. That relationship is best lived out in an organization of organizations – an organization of like-minded people and institutions that want to build and use relational power together as their base for impacting the political, economic, educational and social systems of their city and thereby work towards the transformation of their city.

ICON refers to itself as a broad-based organization. That means two things. First, the constituency of the organization is broad-based – that is, it includes all kinds of institutions that build their power primarily upon relationships: churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, unions, schools, not-for-profit organizations, civic organizations, local neighborhood clubs, etc. Second, the reach of the organization is also broad-based – that is, it might not only include the entirety of a single city but of an entire metropolitan area or region, like the Inland Empire of southern California.

All organizing, such as that done by ICON, operates around the Iron Rule: “Never do for others what they can do for themselves”. It concentrates upon equipping the people and their institutions to act powerfully together to bring about systemic change in their societies. Unless a church, community group, union or any other well-meaning people’s organization joins with other relational institutions and is adequately equipped to use its relational power, it will have an exceedingly hard time being effective in bringing about significant systemic transformation in its parish area, community or city. But if it knows how to exercise relational power – then watch out! They will then be a people who know how to use relational power, and will use it to build through confrontation and negotiate their societies into communities of shalom!

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
Communication and Culture
Communication and Social Change
Communication and Technology
Communication Theory
Critical/Cultural Studies
Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
Health and Risk Communication
Intergroup Communication
International/Global Communication
Interpersonal Communication
Journalism Studies
Language and Social Interaction
Mass Communication
Media and Communication Policy
Organizational Communication
Political Communication
Rhetorical Theory
Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Language and power.

Sik Hung Ng Sik Hung Ng Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China
, and Fei Deng Fei Deng School of Foreign Studies, South China Agricultural University
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.436
Published online: 22 August 2017

Five dynamic language–power relationships in communication have emerged from critical language studies, sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, and the social psychology of language and communication. Two of them stem from preexisting powers behind language that it reveals and reflects, thereby transferring the extralinguistic powers to the communication context. Such powers exist at both the micro and macro levels. At the micro level, the power behind language is a speaker’s possession of a weapon, money, high social status, or other attractive personal qualities—by revealing them in convincing language, the speaker influences the hearer. At the macro level, the power behind language is the collective power (ethnolinguistic vitality) of the communities that speak the language. The dominance of English as a global language and international lingua franca, for example, has less to do with its linguistic quality and more to do with the ethnolinguistic vitality of English-speakers worldwide that it reflects. The other three language–power relationships refer to the powers of language that are based on a language’s communicative versatility and its broad range of cognitive, communicative, social, and identity functions in meaning-making, social interaction, and language policies. Such language powers include, first, the power of language to maintain existing dominance in legal, sexist, racist, and ageist discourses that favor particular groups of language users over others. Another language power is its immense impact on national unity and discord. The third language power is its ability to create influence through single words (e.g., metaphors), oratories, conversations and narratives in political campaigns, emergence of leaders, terrorist narratives, and so forth.

power behind language
power of language
intergroup communication
World Englishes
oratorical power
conversational power
leader emergence
al-Qaeda narrative
social identity approach

Introduction

Language is for communication and power.

Language is a natural human system of conventionalized symbols that have understood meanings. Through it humans express and communicate their private thoughts and feelings as well as enact various social functions. The social functions include co-constructing social reality between and among individuals, performing and coordinating social actions such as conversing, arguing, cheating, and telling people what they should or should not do. Language is also a public marker of ethnolinguistic, national, or religious identity, so strong that people are willing to go to war for its defense, just as they would defend other markers of social identity, such as their national flag. These cognitive, communicative, social, and identity functions make language a fundamental medium of human communication. Language is also a versatile communication medium, often and widely used in tandem with music, pictures, and actions to amplify its power. Silence, too, adds to the force of speech when it is used strategically to speak louder than words. The wide range of language functions and its versatility combine to make language powerful. Even so, this is only one part of what is in fact a dynamic relationship between language and power. The other part is that there is preexisting power behind language which it reveals and reflects, thereby transferring extralinguistic power to the communication context. It is thus important to delineate the language–power relationships and their implications for human communication.

This chapter provides a systematic account of the dynamic interrelationships between language and power, not comprehensively for lack of space, but sufficiently focused so as to align with the intergroup communication theme of the present volume. The term “intergroup communication” will be used herein to refer to an intergroup perspective on communication, which stresses intergroup processes underlying communication and is not restricted to any particular form of intergroup communication such as interethnic or intergender communication, important though they are. It echoes the pioneering attempts to develop an intergroup perspective on the social psychology of language and communication behavior made by pioneers drawn from communication, social psychology, and cognate fields (see Harwood et al., 2005 ). This intergroup perspective has fostered the development of intergroup communication as a discipline distinct from and complementing the discipline of interpersonal communication. One of its insights is that apparently interpersonal communication is in fact dynamically intergroup (Dragojevic & Giles, 2014 ). For this and other reasons, an intergroup perspective on language and communication behavior has proved surprisingly useful in revealing intergroup processes in health communication (Jones & Watson, 2012 ), media communication (Harwood & Roy, 2005 ), and communication in a variety of organizational contexts (Giles, 2012 ).

The major theoretical foundation that has underpinned the intergroup perspective is social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982 ), which continues to service the field as a metatheory (Abrams & Hogg, 2004 ) alongside relatively more specialized theories such as ethnolinguistic identity theory (Harwood et al., 1994 ), communication accommodation theory (Palomares et al., 2016 ), and self-categorization theory applied to intergroup communication (Reid et al., 2005 ). Against this backdrop, this chapter will be less concerned with any particular social category of intergroup communication or variant of social identity theory, and more with developing a conceptual framework of looking at the language–power relationships and their implications for understanding intergroup communication. Readers interested in an intra- or interpersonal perspective may refer to the volume edited by Holtgraves ( 2014a ).

Conceptual Approaches to Power

Bertrand Russell, logician cum philosopher and social activist, published a relatively little-known book on power when World War II was looming large in Europe (Russell, 2004 ). In it he asserted the fundamental importance of the concept of power in the social sciences and likened its importance to the concept of energy in the physical sciences. But unlike physical energy, which can be defined in a formula (e.g., E=MC 2 ), social power has defied any such definition. This state of affairs is not unexpected because the very nature of (social) power is elusive. Foucault ( 1979 , p. 92) has put it this way: “Power is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” This view is not beyond criticism but it does highlight the elusiveness of power. Power is also a value-laden concept meaning different things to different people. To functional theorists and power-wielders, power is “power to,” a responsibility to unite people and do good for all. To conflict theorists and those who are dominated, power is “power over,” which corrupts and is a source of social conflict rather than integration (Lenski, 1966 ; Sassenberg et al., 2014 ). These entrenched views surface in management–labor negotiations and political debates between government and opposition. Management and government would try to frame the negotiation in terms of “power to,” whereas labor and opposition would try to frame the same in “power over” in a clash of power discourses. The two discourses also interchange when the same speakers reverse their power relations: While in opposition, politicians adhere to “power over” rhetorics, once in government, they talk “power to.” And vice versa.

The elusive and value-laden nature of power has led to a plurality of theoretical and conceptual approaches. Five approaches that are particularly pertinent to the language–power relationships will be discussed, and briefly so because of space limitation. One approach views power in terms of structural dominance in society by groups who own and/or control the economy, the government, and other social institutions. Another approach views power as the production of intended effects by overcoming resistance that arises from objective conflict of interests or from psychological reactance to being coerced, manipulated, or unfairly treated. A complementary approach, represented by Kurt Lewin’s field theory, takes the view that power is not the actual production of effects but the potential for doing this. It looks behind power to find out the sources or bases of this potential, which may stem from the power-wielders’ access to the means of punishment, reward, and information, as well as from their perceived expertise and legitimacy (Raven, 2008 ). A fourth approach views power in terms of the balance of control/dependence in the ongoing social exchange between two actors that takes place either in the absence or presence of third parties. It provides a structural account of power-balancing mechanisms in social networking (Emerson, 1962 ), and forms the basis for combining with symbolic interaction theory, which brings in subjective factors such as shared social cognition and affects for the analysis of power in interpersonal and intergroup negotiation (Stolte, 1987 ). The fifth, social identity approach digs behind the social exchange account, which has started from control/dependence as a given but has left it unexplained, to propose a three-process model of power emergence (Turner, 2005 ). According to this model, it is psychological group formation and associated group-based social identity that produce influence; influence then cumulates to form the basis of power, which in turn leads to the control of resources.

Common to the five approaches above is the recognition that power is dynamic in its usage and can transform from one form of power to another. Lukes ( 2005 ) has attempted to articulate three different forms or faces of power called “dimensions.” The first, behavioral dimension of power refers to decision-making power that is manifest in the open contest for dominance in situations of objective conflict of interests. Non-decision-making power, the second dimension, is power behind the scene. It involves the mobilization of organizational bias (e.g., agenda fixing) to keep conflict of interests from surfacing to become public issues and to deprive oppositions of a communication platform to raise their voices, thereby limiting the scope of decision-making to only “safe” issues that would not challenge the interests of the power-wielder. The third dimension is ideological and works by socializing people’s needs and values so that they want the wants and do the things wanted by the power-wielders, willingly as their own. Conflict of interests, opposition, and resistance would be absent from this form of power, not because they have been maneuvered out of the contest as in the case of non-decision-making power, but because the people who are subject to power are no longer aware of any conflict of interest in the power relationship, which may otherwise ferment opposition and resistance. Power in this form can be exercised without the application of coercion or reward, and without arousing perceived manipulation or conflict of interests.

Language–Power Relationships

As indicated in the chapter title, discussion will focus on the language–power relationships, and not on language alone or power alone, in intergroup communication. It draws from all the five approaches to power and can be grouped for discussion under the power behind language and the power of language. In the former, language is viewed as having no power of its own and yet can produce influence and control by revealing the power behind the speaker. Language also reflects the collective/historical power of the language community that uses it. In the case of modern English, its preeminent status as a global language and international lingua franca has shaped the communication between native and nonnative English speakers because of the power of the English-speaking world that it reflects, rather than because of its linguistic superiority. In both cases, language provides a widely used conventional means to transfer extralinguistic power to the communication context. Research on the power of language takes the view that language has power of its own. This power allows a language to maintain the power behind it, unite or divide a nation, and create influence.

In Figure 1 we have grouped the five language–power relationships into five boxes. Note that the boundary between any two boxes is not meant to be rigid but permeable. For example, by revealing the power behind a message (box 1), a message can create influence (box 5). As another example, language does not passively reflect the power of the language community that uses it (box 2), but also, through its spread to other language communities, generates power to maintain its preeminence among languages (box 3). This expansive process of language power can be seen in the rise of English to global language status. A similar expansive process also applies to a particular language style that first reflects the power of the language subcommunity who uses the style, and then, through its common acceptance and usage by other subcommunities in the country, maintains the power of the subcommunity concerned. A prime example of this type of expansive process is linguistic sexism, which reflects preexisting male dominance in society and then, through its common usage by both sexes, contributes to the maintenance of male dominance. Other examples are linguistic racism and the language style of the legal profession, each of which, like linguistic sexism and the preeminence of the English language worldwide, has considerable impact on individuals and society at large.

Space precludes a full discussion of all five language–power relationships. Instead, some of them will warrant only a brief mention, whereas others will be presented in greater detail. The complexity of the language–power relations and their cross-disciplinary ramifications will be evident in the multiple sets of interrelated literatures that we cite from. These include the social psychology of language and communication, critical language studies (Fairclough, 1989 ), sociolinguistics (Kachru, 1992 ), and conversation analysis (Sacks et al., 1974 ).

Figure 1. Power behind language and power of language.

Power Behind Language

Language reveals power.

When negotiating with police, a gang may issue the threatening message, “Meet our demands, or we will shoot the hostages!” The threatening message may succeed in coercing the police to submit; its power, however, is more apparent than real because it is based on the guns gangsters posses. The message merely reveals the power of a weapon in their possession. Apart from revealing power, the gangsters may also cheat. As long as the message comes across as credible and convincing enough to arouse overwhelming fear, it would allow them to get away with their demands without actually possessing any weapon. In this case, language is used to produce an intended effect despite resistance by deceptively revealing a nonexisting power base and planting it in the mind of the message recipient. The literature on linguistic deception illustrates the widespread deceptive use of language-reveals-power to produce intended effects despite resistance (Robinson, 1996 ).

Language Reflects Power

Ethnolinguistic vitality.

The language that a person uses reflects the language community’s power. A useful way to think about a language community’s linguistic power is through the ethnolinguistic vitality model (Bourhis et al., 1981 ; Harwood et al., 1994 ). Language communities in a country vary in absolute size overall and, just as important, a relative numeric concentration in particular regions. Francophone Canadians, though fewer than Anglophone Canadians overall, are concentrated in Quebec to give them the power of numbers there. Similarly, ethnic minorities in mainland China have considerable power of numbers in those autonomous regions where they are concentrated, such as Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang. Collectively, these factors form the demographic base of the language community’s ethnolinguistic vitality, an index of the community’s relative linguistic dominance. Another base of ethnolinguistic vitality is institutional representations of the language community in government, legislatures, education, religion, the media, and so forth, which afford its members institutional leadership, influence, and control. Such institutional representation is often reinforced by a language policy that installs the language as the nation’s sole official language. The third base of ethnolinguistic vitality comprises sociohistorical and cultural status of the language community inside the nation and internationally. In short, the dominant language of a nation is one that comes from and reflects the high ethnolinguistic vitality of its language community.

An important finding of ethnolinguistic vitality research is that it is perceived vitality, and not so much its objective demographic-institutional-cultural strengths, that influences language behavior in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. Interestingly, the visibility and salience of languages shown on public and commercial signs, referred to as the “linguistic landscape,” serve important informational and symbolic functions as a marker of their relative vitality, which in turn affects the use of in-group language in institutional settings (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006 ; Landry & Bourhis, 1997 ).

World Englishes and Lingua Franca English

Another field of research on the power behind and reflected in language is “World Englishes.” At the height of the British Empire English spread on the back of the Industrial Revolution and through large-scale migrations of Britons to the “New World,” which has since become the core of an “inner circle” of traditional native English-speaking nations now led by the United States (Kachru, 1992 ). The emergent wealth and power of these nations has maintained English despite the decline of the British Empire after World War II. In the post-War era, English has become internationalized with the support of an “outer circle” nations and, later, through its spread to “expanding circle” nations. Outer circle nations are made up mostly of former British colonies such as India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. In compliance with colonial language policies that institutionalized English as the new colonial national language, a sizeable proportion of the colonial populations has learned and continued using English over generations, thereby vastly increasing the number of English speakers over and above those in the inner circle nations. The expanding circle encompasses nations where English has played no historical government roles, but which are keen to appropriate English as the preeminent foreign language for local purposes such as national development, internationalization of higher education, and participation in globalization (e.g., China, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, Egypt, Israel, and continental Europe).

English is becoming a global language with official or special status in at least 75 countries (British Council, n.d. ). It is also the language choice in international organizations and companies, as well as academia, and is commonly used in trade, international mass media, and entertainment, and over the Internet as the main source of information. English native speakers can now follow the worldwide English language track to find jobs overseas without having to learn the local language and may instead enjoy a competitive language advantage where the job requires English proficiency. This situation is a far cry from the colonial era when similar advantages had to come under political patronage. Alongside English native speakers who work overseas benefitting from the preeminence of English over other languages, a new phenomenon of outsourcing international call centers away from the United Kingdom and the United States has emerged (Friginal, 2007 ). Callers can find the information or help they need from people stationed in remote places such as India or the Philippines where English has penetrated.

As English spreads worldwide, it has also become the major international lingua franca, serving some 800 million multilinguals in Asia alone, and numerous others elsewhere (Bolton, 2008 ). The practical importance of this phenomenon and its impact on English vocabulary, grammar, and accent have led to the emergence of a new field of research called “English as a lingua franca” (Brosch, 2015 ). The twin developments of World Englishes and lingua franca English raise interesting and important research questions. A vast area of research lies in waiting.

Several lines of research suggest themselves from an intergroup communication perspective. How communicatively effective are English native speakers who are international civil servants in organizations such as the UN and WTO, where they habitually speak as if they were addressing their fellow natives without accommodating to the international audience? Another line of research is lingua franca English communication between two English nonnative speakers. Their common use of English signals a joint willingness of linguistic accommodation, motivated more by communication efficiency of getting messages across and less by concerns of their respective ethnolinguistic identities. An intergroup communication perspective, however, would sensitize researchers to social identity processes and nonaccommodation behaviors underneath lingua franca communication. For example, two nationals from two different countries, X and Y, communicating with each other in English are accommodating on the language level; at the same time they may, according to communication accommodation theory, use their respective X English and Y English for asserting their ethnolinguistic distinctiveness whilst maintaining a surface appearance of accommodation. There are other possibilities. According to a survey of attitudes toward English accents, attachment to “standard” native speaker models remains strong among nonnative English speakers in many countries (Jenkins, 2009 ). This suggests that our hypothetical X and Y may, in addition to asserting their respective Englishes, try to outperform one another in speaking with overcorrect standard English accents, not so much because they want to assert their respective ethnolinguistic identities, but because they want to project a common in-group identity for positive social comparison—“We are all English-speakers but I am a better one than you!”

Many countries in the expanding circle nations are keen to appropriate English for local purposes, encouraging their students and especially their educational elites to learn English as a foreign language. A prime example is the Learn-English Movement in China. It has affected generations of students and teachers over the past 30 years and consumed a vast amount of resources. The results are mixed. Even more disturbing, discontents and backlashes have emerged from anti-English Chinese motivated to protect the vitality and cultural values of the Chinese language (Sun et al., 2016 ). The power behind and reflected in modern English has widespread and far-reaching consequences in need of more systematic research.

Power of Language

Language maintains existing dominance.

Language maintains and reproduces existing dominance in three different ways represented respectively by the ascent of English, linguistic sexism, and legal language style. For reasons already noted, English has become a global language, an international lingua franca, and an indispensable medium for nonnative English speaking countries to participate in the globalized world. Phillipson ( 2009 ) referred to this phenomenon as “linguistic imperialism.” It is ironic that as the spread of English has increased the extent of multilingualism of non-English-speaking nations, English native speakers in the inner circle of nations have largely remained English-only. This puts pressure on the rest of the world to accommodate them in English, the widespread use of which maintains its preeminence among languages.

A language evolves and changes to adapt to socially accepted word meanings, grammatical rules, accents, and other manners of speaking. What is acceptable or unacceptable reflects common usage and hence the numerical influence of users, but also the elites’ particular language preferences and communication styles. Research on linguistic sexism has shown, for example, a man-made language such as English (there are many others) is imbued with sexist words and grammatical rules that reflect historical male dominance in society. Its uncritical usage routinely by both sexes in daily life has in turn naturalized male dominance and associated sexist inequalities (Spender, 1998 ). Similar other examples are racist (Reisigl & Wodak, 2005 ) and ageist (Ryan et al., 1995 ) language styles.

Professional languages are made by and for particular professions such as the legal profession (Danet, 1980 ; Mertz et al., 2016 ; O’Barr, 1982 ). The legal language is used not only among members of the profession, but also with the general public, who may know each and every word in a legal document but are still unable to decipher its meaning. Through its language, the legal profession maintains its professional dominance with the complicity of the general public, who submits to the use of the language and accedes to the profession’s authority in interpreting its meanings in matters relating to their legal rights and obligations. Communication between lawyers and their “clients” is not only problematic, but the public’s continual dependence on the legal language contributes to the maintenance of the dominance of the profession.

Language Unites and Divides a Nation

A nation of many peoples who, despite their diverse cultural and ethnic background, all speak in the same tongue and write in the same script would reap the benefit of the unifying power of a common language. The power of the language to unite peoples would be stronger if it has become part of their common national identity and contributed to its vitality and psychological distinctiveness. Such power has often been seized upon by national leaders and intellectuals to unify their countries and serve other nationalistic purposes (Patten, 2006 ). In China, for example, Emperor Qin Shi Huang standardized the Chinese script ( hanzi ) as an important part of the reforms to unify the country after he had defeated the other states and brought the Warring States Period ( 475–221 bc ) to an end. A similar reform of language standardization was set in motion soon after the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty ( ad 1644–1911 ), by simplifying some of the hanzi and promoting Putonghua as the national standard oral language. In the postcolonial part of the world, language is often used to service nationalism by restoring the official status of their indigenous language as the national language whilst retaining the colonial language or, in more radical cases of decolonization, relegating the latter to nonofficial status. Yet language is a two-edged sword: It can also divide a nation. The tension can be seen in competing claims to official-language status made by minority language communities, protest over maintenance of minority languages, language rights at schools and in courts of law, bilingual education, and outright language wars (Calvet, 1998 ; DeVotta, 2004 ).

Language Creates Influence

In this section we discuss the power of language to create influence through single words and more complex linguistic structures ranging from oratories and conversations to narratives/stories.

Power of Single Words

Learning a language empowers humans to master an elaborate system of conventions and the associations between words and their sounds on the one hand, and on the other hand, categories of objects and relations to which they refer. After mastering the referential meanings of words, a person can mentally access the objects and relations simply by hearing or reading the words. Apart from their referential meanings, words also have connotative meanings with their own social-cognitive consequences. Together, these social-cognitive functions underpin the power of single words that has been extensively studied in metaphors, which is a huge research area that crosses disciplinary boundaries and probes into the inner workings of the brain (Benedek et al., 2014 ; Landau et al., 2014 ; Marshal et al., 2007 ). The power of single words extends beyond metaphors. It can be seen in misleading words in leading questions (Loftus, 1975 ), concessive connectives that reverse expectations from real-world knowledge (Xiang & Kuperberg, 2014 ), verbs that attribute implicit causality to either verb subject or object (Hartshorne & Snedeker, 2013 ), “uncertainty terms” that hedge potentially face-threatening messages (Holtgraves, 2014b ), and abstract words that signal power (Wakslak et al., 2014 ).

The literature on the power of single words has rarely been applied to intergroup communication, with the exception of research arising from the linguistic category model (e.g., Semin & Fiedler, 1991 ). The model distinguishes among descriptive action verbs (e.g., “hits”), interpretative action verbs (e.g., “hurts”) and state verbs (e.g., “hates”), which increase in abstraction in that order. Sentences made up of abstract verbs convey more information about the protagonist, imply greater temporal and cross-situational stability, and are more difficult to disconfirm. The use of abstract language to represent a particular behavior will attribute the behavior to the protagonist rather than the situation and the resulting image of the protagonist will persist despite disconfirming information, whereas the use of concrete language will attribute the same behavior more to the situation and the resulting image of the protagonist will be easier to change. According to the linguistic intergroup bias model (Maass, 1999 ), abstract language will be used to represent positive in-group and negative out-group behaviors, whereas concrete language will be used to represent negative in-group and positive out-group behaviors. The combined effects of the differential use of abstract and concrete language would, first, lead to biased attribution (explanation) of behavior privileging the in-group over the out-group, and second, perpetuate the prejudiced intergroup stereotypes. More recent research has shown that linguistic intergroup bias varies with the power differential between groups—it is stronger in high and low power groups than in equal power groups (Rubini et al., 2007 ).

Oratorical Power

A charismatic speaker may, by the sheer force of oratory, buoy up people’s hopes, convert their hearts from hatred to forgiveness, or embolden them to take up arms for a cause. One may recall moving speeches (in English) such as Susan B. Anthony’s “On Women’s Right to Vote,” Winston Churchill’s “We Shall Fight on the Beaches,” Mahatma Gandhi’s “Quit India,” or Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream.” The speech may be delivered face-to-face to an audience, or broadcast over the media. The discussion below focuses on face-to-face oratories in political meetings.

Oratorical power may be measured in terms of money donated or pledged to the speaker’s cause, or, in a religious sermon, the number of converts made. Not much research has been reported on these topics. Another measurement approach is to count the frequency of online audience responses that a speech has generated, usually but not exclusively in the form of applause. Audience applause can be measured fairly objectively in terms of frequency, length, or loudness, and collected nonobtrusively from a public recording of the meeting. Audience applause affords researchers the opportunity to explore communicative and social psychological processes that underpin some aspects of the power of rhetorical formats. Note, however, that not all incidences of audience applause are valid measures of the power of rhetoric. A valid incidence should be one that is invited by the speaker and synchronized with the flow of the speech, occurring at the appropriate time and place as indicated by the rhetorical format. Thus, an uninvited incidence of applause would not count, nor is one that is invited but has occurred “out of place” (too soon or too late). Furthermore, not all valid incidences are theoretically informative to the same degree. An isolated applause from just a handful of the audience, though valid and in the right place, has relatively little theoretical import for understanding the power of rhetoric compared to one that is made by many acting in unison as a group. When the latter occurs, it would be a clear indication of the power of rhetorically formulated speech. Such positive audience response constitutes the most direct and immediate means by which an audience can display its collective support for the speaker, something which they would not otherwise show to a speech of less power. To influence and orchestrate hundreds and thousands of people in the audience to precisely coordinate their response to applaud (and cheer) together as a group at the right time and place is no mean feat. Such a feat also influences the wider society through broadcast on television and other news and social media. The combined effect could be enormous there and then, and its downstream influence far-reaching, crossing country boarders and inspiring generations to come.

To accomplish the feat, an orator has to excite the audience to applaud, build up the excitement to a crescendo, and simultaneously cue the audience to synchronize their outburst of stored-up applause with the ongoing speech. Rhetorical formats that aid the orator to accomplish the dual functions include contrast, list, puzzle solution, headline-punchline, position-taking, and pursuit (Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986 ). To illustrate, we cite the contrast and list formats.

A contrast, or antithesis, is made up of binary schemata such as “too much” and “too little.” Heritage and Greatbatch ( 1986 , p. 123) reported the following example:

Governments will argue that resources are not available to help disabled people. The fact is that too much is spent on the munitions of war, and too little is spent on the munitions of peace [italics added]. As the audience is familiar with the binary schema of “too much” and “too little” they can habitually match the second half of the contrast against the first half. This decoding process reinforces message comprehension and helps them to correctly anticipate and applaud at the completion point of the contrast. In the example quoted above, the speaker micropaused for 0.2 seconds after the second word “spent,” at which point the audience began to applaud in anticipation of the completion point of the contrast, and applauded more excitedly upon hearing “. . . on the munitions of peace.” The applause continued and lasted for 9.2 long seconds.

A list is usually made up of a series of three parallel words, phrases or clauses. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” is a fine example, as is Obama’s “It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day , in this election , at this defining moment , change has come to America!” (italics added) The three parts in the list echo one another, step up the argument and its corresponding excitement in the audience as they move from one part to the next. The third part projects a completion point to cue the audience to get themselves ready to display their support via applause, cheers, and so forth. In a real conversation this juncture is called a “transition-relevance place,” at which point a conversational partner (hearer) may take up a turn to speak. A skilful orator will micropause at that juncture to create a conversational space for the audience to take up their turn in applauding and cheering as a group.

As illustrated by the two examples above, speaker and audience collaborate to transform an otherwise monological speech into a quasiconversation, turning a passive audience into an active supportive “conversational” partner who, by their synchronized responses, reduces the psychological separation from the speaker and emboldens the latter’s self-confidence. Through such enjoyable and emotional participation collectively, an audience made up of formerly unconnected individuals with no strong common group identity may henceforth begin to feel “we are all one.” According to social identity theory and related theories (van Zomeren et al., 2008 ), the emergent group identity, politicized in the process, will in turn provide a social psychological base for collective social action. This process of identity making in the audience is further strengthened by the speaker’s frequent use of “we” as a first person, plural personal pronoun.

Conversational Power

A conversation is a speech exchange system in which the length and order of speaking turns have not been preassigned but require coordination on an utterance-by-utterance basis between two or more individuals. It differs from other speech exchange systems in which speaking turns have been preassigned and/or monitored by a third party, for example, job interviews and debate contests. Turn-taking, because of its centrality to conversations and the important theoretical issues that it raises for social coordination and implicit conversational conventions, has been the subject of extensive research and theorizing (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990 ; Grice, 1975 ; Sacks et al., 1974 ). Success at turn-taking is a key part of the conversational process leading to influence. A person who cannot do this is in no position to influence others in and through conversations, which are probably the most common and ubiquitous form of human social interaction. Below we discuss studies of conversational power based on conversational turns and applied to leader emergence in group and intergroup settings. These studies, as they unfold, link conversation analysis with social identity theory and expectation states theory (Berger et al., 1974 ).

A conversational turn in hand allows the speaker to influence others in two important ways. First, through current-speaker-selects-next the speaker can influence who will speak next and, indirectly, increases the probability that he or she will regain the turn after the next. A common method for selecting the next speaker is through tag questions. The current speaker (A) may direct a tag question such as “Ya know?” or “Don’t you agree?” to a particular hearer (B), which carries the illocutionary force of selecting the addressee to be the next speaker and, simultaneously, restraining others from self-selecting. The A 1 B 1 sequence of exchange has been found to have a high probability of extending into A 1 B 1 A 2 in the next round of exchange, followed by its continuation in the form of A 1 B 1 A 2 B 2 . For example, in a six-member group, the A 1 B 1 →A 1 B 1 A 2 sequence of exchange has more than 50% chance of extending to the A 1 B 1 A 2 B 2 sequence, which is well above chance level, considering that there are four other hearers who could intrude at either the A 2 or B 2 slot of turn (Stasser & Taylor, 1991 ). Thus speakership not only offers the current speaker the power to select the next speaker twice, but also to indirectly regain a turn.

Second, a turn in hand provides the speaker with an opportunity to exercise topic control. He or she can exercise non-decision-making power by changing an unfavorable or embarrassing topic to a safer one, thereby silencing or preventing it from reaching the “floor.” Conversely, he or she can exercise decision-making power by continuing or raising a topic that is favorable to self. Or the speaker can move on to talk about an innocuous topic to ease tension in the group.

Bales ( 1950 ) has studied leader emergence in groups made up of unacquainted individuals in situations where they have to bid or compete for speaking turns. Results show that individuals who talk the most have a much better chance of becoming leaders. Depending on the social orientations of their talk, they would be recognized as a task or relational leader. Subsequent research on leader emergence has shown that an even better behavioral predictor than volume of talk is the number of speaking turns. An obvious reason for this is that the volume of talk depends on the number of turns—it usually accumulates across turns, rather than being the result of a single extraordinary long turn of talk. Another reason is that more turns afford the speaker more opportunities to realize the powers of turns that have been explicated above. Group members who become leaders are the ones who can penetrate the complex, on-line conversational system to obtain a disproportionately large number of speaking turns by perfect timing at “transition-relevance places” to self-select as the next speaker or, paradoxical as it may seem, constructive interruptions (Ng et al., 1995 ).

More recent research has extended the experimental study of group leadership to intergroup contexts, where members belonging to two groups who hold opposing stances on a social or political issue interact within and also between groups. The results showed, first, that speaking turns remain important in leader emergence, but the intergroup context now generates social identity and self-categorization processes that selectively privilege particular forms of speech. What potential leaders say, and not only how many speaking turns they have gained, becomes crucial in conveying to group members that they are prototypical members of their group. Prototypical communication is enacted by adopting an accent, choosing code words, and speaking in a tone that characterize the in-group; above all, it is enacted through the content of utterances to represent or exemplify the in-group position. Such prototypical utterances that are directed successfully at the out-group correlate strongly with leader emergence (Reid & Ng, 2000 ). These out-group-directed prototypical utterances project an in-group identity that is psychologically distinctive from the out-group for in-group members to feel proud of and to rally together when debating with the out-group.

Building on these experimental results Reid and Ng ( 2003 ) developed a social identity theory of leadership to account for the emergence and maintenance of intergroup leadership, grounding it in case studies of the intergroup communication strategies that brought Ariel Sharon and John Howard to power in Israel and Australia, respectively. In a later development, the social identity account was fused with expectation states theory to explain how group processes collectively shape the behavior of in-group members to augment the prototypical communication behavior of the emergent leader (Reid & Ng, 2006 ). Specifically, when conversational influence gained through prototypical utterances culminates to form an incipient power hierarchy, group members develop expectations of who is and will be leading the group. Acting on these tacit expectations they collectively coordinate the behavior of each other to conform with the expectations by granting incipient leaders more speaking turns and supporting them with positive audience responses. In this way, group members collectively amplify the influence of incipient leaders and jointly propel them to leadership roles (see also Correll & Ridgeway, 2006 ). In short, the emergence of intergroup leaders is a joint process of what they do individually and what group members do collectively, enabled by speaking turns and mediated by social identity and expectation states processes. In a similar vein, Hogg ( 2014 ) has developed a social identity account of leadership in intergroup settings.

Narrative Power

Narratives and stories are closely related and are sometimes used interchangeably. However, it is useful to distinguish a narrative from a story and from other related terms such as discourse and frames. A story is a sequence of related events in the past recounted for rhetorical or ideological purposes, whereas a narrative is a coherent system of interrelated and sequentially organized stories formed by incorporating new stories and relating them to others so as to provide an ongoing basis for interpreting events, envisioning an ideal future, and motivating and justifying collective actions (Halverson et al., 2011 ). The temporal dimension and sense of movement in a narrative also distinguish it from discourse and frames. According to Miskimmon, O’Loughlin, and Roselle ( 2013 ), discourses are the raw material of communication that actors plot into a narrative, and frames are the acts of selecting and highlighting some events or issues to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, and solution. Both discourse and frame lack the temporal and causal transformation of a narrative.

Pitching narratives at the suprastory level and stressing their temporal and transformational movements allows researchers to take a structurally more systemic and temporally more expansive view than traditional research on propaganda wars between nations, religions, or political systems (Halverson et al., 2011 ; Miskimmon et al., 2013 ). Schmid ( 2014 ) has provided an analysis of al-Qaeda’s “compelling narrative that authorizes its strategy, justifies its violent tactics, propagates its ideology and wins new recruits.” According to this analysis, the chief message of the narrative is “the West is at war with Islam,” a strategic communication that is fundamentally intergroup in both structure and content. The intergroup structure of al-Qaeda narrative includes the rhetorical constructions that there are a group grievance inflicted on Muslims by a Zionist–Christian alliance, a vision of the good society (under the Caliphate and sharia), and a path from grievance to the realization of the vision led by al-Qaeda in a violent jihad to eradicate Western influence in the Muslim world. The al-Qaeda narrative draws support not only from traditional Arab and Muslim cultural narratives interpreted to justify its unorthodox means (such as attacks against women and children), but also from pre-existing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism propagated by some Arab governments, Soviet Cold War propaganda, anti-Western sermons by Muslim clerics, and the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. It is deeply embedded in culture and history, and has reached out to numerous Muslims who have emigrated to the West.

The intergroup content of al-Qaeda narrative was shown in a computer-aided content analysis of 18 representative transcripts of propaganda speeches released between 2006–2011 by al-Qaeda leaders, totaling over 66,000 words (Cohen et al., 2016 ). As part of the study, an “Ideology Extraction using Linguistic Extremization” (IELEX) categorization scheme was developed for mapping the content of the corpus, which revealed 19 IELEX rhetorical categories referring to either the out-group/enemy or the in-group/enemy victims. The out-group/enemy was represented by four categories such as “The enemy is extremely negative (bloodthirsty, vengeful, brainwashed, etc.)”; whereas the in-group/enemy victims were represented by more categories such as “we are entirely innocent/good/virtuous.” The content of polarized intergroup stereotypes, demonizing “them” and glorifying “us,” echoes other similar findings (Smith et al., 2008 ), as well as the general finding of intergroup stereotyping in social psychology (Yzerbyt, 2016 ).

The success of the al-Qaeda narrative has alarmed various international agencies, individual governments, think tanks, and religious groups to spend huge sums of money on developing counternarratives that are, according to Schmid ( 2014 ), largely feeble. The so-called “global war on terror” has failed in its effort to construct effective counternarratives although al-Qaeda’s finance, personnel, and infrastructure have been much weakened. Ironically, it has developed into a narrative of its own, not so much for countering external extremism, but for promoting and justifying internal nationalistic extremist policies and influencing national elections. This reactive coradicalization phenomenon is spreading (Mink, 2015 ; Pratt, 2015 ; Reicher & Haslam, 2016 ).

Discussion and Future Directions

This chapter provides a systematic framework for understanding five language–power relationships, namely, language reveals power, reflects power, maintains existing dominance, unites and divides a nation, and creates influence. The first two relationships are derived from the power behind language and the last three from the power of language. Collectively they provide a relatively comprehensible framework for understanding the relationships between language and power, and not simply for understanding language alone or power alone separated from one another. The language–power relationships are dynamically interrelated, one influencing the other, and each can draw from an array of the cognitive, communicative, social, and identity functions of language. The framework is applicable to both interpersonal and intergroup contexts of communication, although for present purposes the latter has been highlighted. Among the substantive issues discussed in this chapter, English as a global language, oratorical and narrative power, and intergroup leadership stand out as particularly important for political and theoretical reasons.

In closing, we note some of the gaps that need to be filled and directions for further research. When discussing the powers of language to maintain and reflect existing dominance, we have omitted the countervailing power of language to resist or subvert existing dominance and, importantly, to create social change for the collective good. Furthermore, in this age of globalization and its discontents, English as a global language will increasingly be resented for its excessive unaccommodating power despite tangible lingua franca English benefits, and challenged by the expanding ethnolinguistic vitality of peoples who speak Arabic, Chinese, or Spanish. Internet communication is no longer predominantly in English, but is rapidly diversifying to become the modern Tower of Babel. And yet we have barely scratched the surface of these issues. Other glaring gaps include the omission of media discourse and recent developments in Corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (Loring, 2016 ), as well as the lack of reference to languages other than English that may cast one or more of the language–power relationships in a different light.

One of the main themes of this chapter—that the diverse language–power relationships are dynamically interrelated—clearly points to the need for greater theoretical fertilization across cognate disciplines. Our discussion of the three powers of language (boxes 3–5 in Figure 1 ) clearly points in this direction, most notably in the case of the powers of language to create influence through single words, oratories, conversations, and narratives, but much more needs to be done. The social identity approach will continue to serve as a meta theory of intergroup communication. To the extent that intergroup communication takes place in an existing power relation and that the changes that it seeks are not simply a more positive or psychologically distinctive social identity but greater group power and a more powerful social identity, the social identity approach has to incorporate power in its application to intergroup communication.

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field We invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the Constructive Conflict Initiative and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems.

By Máire A. Dugan

June 2003 -- Updated August, 2012 and again in June 2017 by Heidi Burgess

Current Implications

Reading through this essay in June, 2017, I was struck, mostly, with how relevant it was, and once, by how wrong it seemed on one (astonishing) point. Let me go through these one-by-one. More...

In one of the few in-depth treatments of power in conflict situations, Hubert M. Blalock begins by acknowledging something most of us know but rarely state: "The concept of power is both exceedingly slippery to pin down and yet indispensable in enabling one to analyze...."[1]

|

This Seminar is part of the...

Having defined power, as in physics, as having both potential and kinetic forms, he opts for the latter usage alone in his text. That is, he acknowledges power as both the capacity of an individual or group to accomplish something, and the actual doing of something, but he limits his discussion to "actions actually accomplished."

This has two advantages. First, it dovetails with how most of us think about power most of the time. Second, it is easier to quantify. It is much easier to measure something that has occurred than something that is a possibility. An actual occurrence is a fact that can be checked. There may be disagreement on the sources of its occurrence, but the argument about its occurrence is likely to be short-lived if adequate facts can be brought to bear. If one side has won in a disagreement (in that it has gotten the other to do something it wanted), we have prima facie evidence that the first is more powerful -- or at least has exerted more power -- than the second.

Since concerns of relative power are important in conflicts, it is helpful to have a clear picture of who has more. We can then more easily say that one is more (or less) powerful than another. Theoretically, at least, we can predict who will win and who will lose the confrontation. Hopefully, we could then dissuade a party from pursuing a destructive battle that it is bound to lose.

Defining Power

Before defining power in a sociological sense, let's look at a type of power with which we are familiar on a daily basis -- electrical power. We know that electricity is available to us when we plug an appliance into an outlet and turn it on. Except in the case of an outage or a malfunction, we expect electricity to be available to us to make electrical appliances function. Further, when the appliance is functioning, we can see and benefit from the power we have at our disposal. In other words, we can detect both potential and actual power.

So, too, with social and political power. There's nothing quite as visible and uniform as an outlet to identify its source, but it functions in both the potential and actual. As with electricity, for all its complexity in operation, social and political power has a simple definition.

Power is the Capacity to Bring about Change

Oftentimes, power is more narrowly defined, even when both its actual and potential forms are considered. While change is central in these definitions, the authors tend to focus only on changing the other. Thus, power is often defined as the capacity to influence others' behavior, to get others to do what challengers want, rather than what the initial parties themselves want. It is, however, important to recognize that change can be within rather than without, or that it may be a combination of the two. This recognition is important in concerns about empowerment ; beyond this, it opens up additional strategies to consider in combating injustice and seeking social change .

Sources of Power

If power were one-dimensional, we could agree with some degree of certitude who has more and who has less and thus, who will be the victor in a contest of wills. However, we are often confronted with surprises in this regard when a seemingly less powerful party holds a more powerful party at bay. As an example, Iraq lost the first Gulf War. This can be documented. A major source of its defeat was that the massive alliance arrayed against it had vastly superior firepower. That situation remained after the war was over. Nonetheless, Iraq successfully evaded U.N. inspection directives for over a decade. Where was its source of power? It later fought the United States and a much smaller set of allies to an ambiguous end: some would say the US and its allies "won," but others would say that Iraq "won." Actually, many more observer, and almost all peace scholars, are likely to say that both sides lost! Why wasn't the US --supposedly the most powerful nation in the world able to quickly and cleanly defeat Iraq in the second Iraq war? To be able to answer such questions, it is important to look beyond military might as a source of power.

Truth threatens power, and power threatens truth. --

Electrical power provides an additional metaphor in the consideration of social and political power. It provides a window on the importance of the sources of power. There are many cases where electrical power may be insufficient. In the case of a developing nation, lack of inexpensive electricity may be limiting its industrial potential, which may in turn be contributing to the impoverishment of its citizens. In a region facing an influx of residents, there may not be sufficient electricity to provide expected services. In an overdeveloped area, people may be facing power outages during peak usage times of the day.

In the last case, the best plan of action may be to face hard choices about limiting future growth. But even here, people are most likely concerned with how to obtain more power, more easily accessible power, and/or less expensive power. To do any of these, we need to understand the sources of power and compare their relative ease, benefit, and cost. Is a fossil fuel plant the best option? What about the air pollution in the surrounding area? How about a nuclear plant? Who is to bear the cost of the heat pollution it generates in the waters into which its outtake valves deposit formerly cooler water? What about the dangers of accidents?

Obtaining power is never without cost. Technological advances provide additional choices on how to generate electricity, which may enable us to limit or mute some of those costs. The same is true with increasing or obtaining political power, where identifying and developing alternative sources of power may mitigate some of its undesirable impacts.

Additional insights into are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.

Gene Sharp provides a broad list of sources of power.[2] Sources include:

authority, that is, the perception among the governed that the leader has the right to give them directives.
human resources in the form of people who support and assist the leader as well as their percentage in the general population.
skills and knowledge, including the talents of those who work for the leader.
intangible factors, "such as psychological and ideological factors, such as habits and attitudes toward obedience and submission, and the presence or absence of a common faith, ideology, or sense of mission."[3]
material resources in the form of control over wealth, property, natural resources, communications, and transportation.
sanctions or reprisals which the leader is both willing and able to use against her/his own constituency and/or an adversary.

A couple of comments are in order before leaving this list. First, while each item on the list is obviously a potential source of the capacity to bring about change (power), only the last is, by definition, directly related to force and coercion . Second, I want to underscore authority as a source of power. Stanley Milgram has compellingly highlighted its import in the series of experiments in which people were asked to shock a "learner" at increasingly higher voltages if the learner did not answer questions correctly. Sixty-five percent of the subjects did as requested, even after hearing feigned cries of pain (the learner was a confederate of the experimenter and was not actually receiving any shocks). Milgram concluded that:

With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts. ...A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority.[4]

Forms of Power (Power Strategies)

Given that power's sources are very different, it is not surprising that its manifestations are different enough in kind to justify a separate treatment for each. But as a brief overview, let us consider the image presented by Kenneth Boulding, a preeminent peace researcher and economist who has provided us with a powerful metaphor for grappling with the different types of power: the stick, the carrot, and the hug. The stick and the carrot are familiar metaphors, the first for force and the second for enticement. The third is for a form of power which Boulding claims to be the most-often used -- integrative or collaborative power .[5]

Coercive power , as mentioned above, is the form most meant when one refers to power. Coercive power is based on superior strength, often in the form of physical strength or superior arms. While the stick is its metaphor, force can be achieved through less overtly violent means, as, for example, when the necessities of life are withheld or when someone is embarrassed into submission. Coercion is often accomplished without the actual infliction of force. The mere threat of its use, when believed, can be sufficient to obtain compliance. The chapter on coercive and threat power will deal with this spectrum of power.

The carrot represents a much gentler type of power, one that relies on a variety of exchange and reward possibilities. Oftentimes, an exchange is made or implied. Person A does the bidding of Person B because of something Person A will do in return. Global economies are run largely on the basis of exchange power . So, too, on a more personal level, are much of day-to-day finances. Workers perform their tasks in exchange for the pay they are given. A worker may choose to meet an early deadline requested by a manager in order to receive the manager's appreciation, perhaps even a raise or promotion. This spectrum of reasons that people change their behavior is the subject of the section on Exchange Power .

It is the final element, the hug, which brings us to the least-explored form of power. The section on integrative or collaborative power will explore a range of more internalized reasons that people change their behavior in a direction that may be more desirable to themselves or someone else. The first element the hug brings to mind is love, but collaborative power can also be based on qualities such as loyalty and legitimacy, or simply a conviction that teamwork is a more productive approach than hierarchy. It may also involve the use of persuasion, the persuader drawing on not only the logic of her own case, but also the values of the other.

While love and other integrative aspects of power are not usually considered when discussing power, this focus is not new. Karl M. Deutsch, a pre-eminent political scientist of the mid-20 th century, put it this way:

Power is...neither the center nor the essence of politics. It is one of the currencies of politics, one of the important mechanisms of acceleration or of damage control where influence, habit, or voluntary coordination may have failed, or where these may have failed to serve adequately the function of goal attainment. Force is another and narrower currency and damage control mechanism of this kind. Influence and the trading of ... desired favors -- the traditional "playing politics" of American colloquial speech -- are still others. All these are important, but each is replaceable by the others, and all are secondary to what now appears...as the essence of politics: the dependable coordination of human efforts and expectations for the attainment of the goals of the society.[6]

"Will is ineffective without power; but power is only randomly effective without will." --

Feminist scholars provide a different lens through which to look at the three forms of power, which are referred to, respectively, as "power over," "power to," and "power with."[7] "Power over" refers to power through domination; it is coercive and operates largely through threat and fear. "Power to" directs our attention back to the definition of power in general. If power is the capacity to change, then should we not focus our first thoughts, not on fear and force, but on getting things done? "Power with" refers to a certain form of getting things done, that is, collaborative endeavors. This is the form of power that receives most emphasis in feminist literature as well as other literatures from those with lesser amounts of power, e.g., liberation theology. It reflects a concern about moving away from hierarchical forms of governance and society to what Riane Eisler calls "partnership societies."[8]

Louis Kriesberg looks at power from the position of a party in a conflict:

A conflict party has three basic ways to induce adversaries to move toward the position it desires: It may try to persuade, coerce, or reward the opponents.[9]

In a conflict, a party thus has three general sources of improving its chances of meeting its own goals and/or reducing the chances of its adversary from meeting goals to which it objects: sticks, carrots or hugs.

In the real world, it is rare that any of these forms of power is exercised on its own. More typically, exercise of power involves a combination of some aspects of at least two, and oftentimes all three. Sociologist Paul Wehr refered to the mixture as the "power strategy mix"--the specific combination of sticks, carrots, and hugs that is likely to yield the optimal result. When one is dealing with an opponent who is reasonably agreeable and likely to negotiate, all one needs is a carrot, with a bit of a hug, perhaps to make sure the negotiation is cooperative, not competitive. If the opponent is unwilling to budge, however, a minor show of force (as little as necessary) might get them to reconsider and come to the negotiating table. Sometimes, however, a major show of force is necessary--but as the essay on Coercive Power shows, that approach has grave dangers. Those dangers can be termpered, at least to some extent, by integrating "some carrots" and even some "hugs" into the mix--which is actually what the US tried to do in the second "nation building" phase of the second Iraq war. Here the U.S. switched away from the heavily stick-based approach of "shock and awe" to an approach where only violent insurgents were targeted, while the military tried to build relations -- and infrastrcutre such as schools, water projects, power plants, etc. for the peaceful population.

A related essay in this section on power is empowerment . How can less powerful parties make use of the array of sources of power? What sorts of power should they seek? Feminist and other liberation literatures put a particular emphasis on this question, which is reflected in the empowerment essay.

Reading through this essay in June, 2017, I was struck, mostly, with how relevant it was, and once, by how wrong it seemed on one (astonishing) point. Let me go through these one-by-one.

Defining power and determining who has more: The president of the United States is thought to have a tremendous amount of power. Yet if power is measured only in terms of changes actually brought about, President Trump has much less than anticipated. He keeps on getting blocked by Congress, the courts, by lower-level officials (who for instance are vowing to uphold the Paris Climate Agreement even after Trump said the U.S. would back out), and the public at large (who, for example, massively lobbied their Congresspeople, insisting that they not pass the American Health Care Act (AHCA). Thus by defining power by what actually gets done, one has a very different image of who has how much power than if one just looks at “potential” power.
Sources of power: Gene Sharp’s list of sources of power is still a good one, and it illustrates why Trump’s opponents are doing as well as they are at blocking his various initiatives. While the President has a great deal of authority, he is learning that the Constitution and the courts have even more…so when the courts struck down his travel ban as unconstitutional, he was powerless to do anything about that. Another of his problems involves skills and knowledge. He, and most of his cabinet, is new to government. They therefore lack the skills and knowledge needed to know how government systems work, and what needs to be done in order to get one’s interests, needs, or even one’s orders met. However, both he and his opponents have a great number of people who support them (human resources), and they both have material resources (mostly money) supporting each side. Both sides also have “intangible factors”—habits and attitudes that cause some to support Trump’s more authoritarian, dogmatic, and outspoken tendencies (“he tells it like it is!”) while others are completely disgusted with that approach. Lastly, Trump has sanctions he can use against people he dislikes—ranging from tweets to firings to arrests. But the other side may have sanctions they can use against Trump as well…for instance the courts striking down several of his Executive Orders.
Forms of power/power strategies. As we will be discussing at some length in the Conflict Frontiers seminar, both Trump, and many other leaders seem to be almost entirely relying on coercive power to accomplish their goals. As this article, and subsequent ones, make clear, coercive power is dangerous to use—it makes enemies who will often come back to attack you later. Exchange and integrative power are much safer and in many ways more effective forms of power. One can only hope that the tendency to rely on coercive power will soon give way to leaders (Gerzon called them collaborative leaders in his post on Leadership) who will be both more effective and more secure, as they won’t be creating enemies with every step they take.
One Change: And lastly, the astonishing point where this essay now seems wrong, is the statement that "It is much easier to measure something that has occurred than something that is a possibility. An actual occurrence is a fact that can be checked. There may be disagreement on the sources of its occurrence, but the argument about its occurrence is likely to be short-lived if adequate facts can be brought to bear." Not so in 2017--we are disputing "facts" and "alt-facts" all the time! Hopefully, we'll get over this soon!

--Heidi Burgess, June, 2017.

Back to Essay Top

[1] Hubert M. Blalock, Power and Conflict: Toward a General Theory (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989), 26.

[2] Gene Sharp, Power and Struggle ( Politics of Nonviolent Action, Part I), (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, 1973)

[3] Ibid, 11.

[4] Thomas Blass, "Stanley Milgram." (2002, accessed on November 15, 2002); Available from http://www.stanleymilgram.com/quotes.php ; Internet

[5] Kenneth Boulding, Three Faces of Power . (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1989)

[6] Karl M. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control . (New York: The Free Press, 1963), 124.

[7] Lynne M. Woehrle. Social Constructions of Power and Empowerment: Thoughts from Feminist Approaches to Peace Research and Peace-making (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1992.)

[8] Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future . (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1988.) < http://www.amazon.com/Chalice-Blade-Our-History-Future/dp/0062502891 >

[9] Louis Kriesberg, Social Conflicts (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982), 115.

Use the following to cite this article: Dugan, Máire A.. "Power." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: June 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/power >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts. More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

Revisiting BI's Constructive Conflict Initiative - Part 1 -- Looking back on the 5-year old Constructive Conflict Initiative, a lot has happened to bring it to fruition. But a lot of challenges remain.
Reprise: The Power Strategy Mix — Empowering the Pursuit of the Common Good -- Power takes three forms that can be mixed and matched: coercion, exchange, and integration. The "recipe" for the optimal "power strategy mix" changes depending on whom you are trying to influence.
Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of September 15, 2024 -- We've been on vacation, so, to cover what we've missed, this is a long set of news, opinion, colleague, and recommended readings from our followers.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability, the Conflict Information Consortium, or the University of Colorado.

Beyond Intractability Essay Copyright © 2003-2017 The Beyond Intractability Project, The Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado; All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission. All Creative Commons (CC) Graphics used on this site are covered by the applicable license (which is cited) and any associated "share alike" provisions.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources. Inquire about Affordable Reprint/Republication Rights .

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage and Landings Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability or Moving Beyond Intractability The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors c/o Conflict Information Consortium , University of Colorado 580 UCB, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309, USA -- Phone: (303) 492-1635 -- Contact

How to Wield the Power of Words

Start writing to get smart and creative..

Whenever I am in a workflow funk, writing has proven to be a reliable recourse for unlocking my intelligence and unblocking my creativity. Words have power. Naming your thoughts makes them wieldable. And wielding your thoughts is how you master your universe.

Here is a method I developed this morning for turning my thoughts into words and my words into things of value.

Step 1: Get Thee to a Writing Surface

First you need to get into a functional and comfortable position for focused writing. Get to your desk or any surface that is flat, sturdy, spacious, and clear. Your writing space should also be in an environment that is conducive to concentration. You should be in a place that is well-lit and non-distracting, i.e., quiet and still. Such a spot is a place of power.

One incidental advantage of the habit of writing out one’s ideas is that it promotes concentration as almost no other practice does. As one who has written daily newspaper editorials or weekly magazine columns for many years, I can testify that nothing forces one to pull one’s thoughts together more than deciding on a topic, sitting before the typewriter, feeding in a clean sheet of paper, and then trying to frame one’s exact theme, title, and opening paragraph. Francis Bacon summed it up with unsurpassable conciseness: “Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man.” – Henry Hazlitt

Step 2: Express Your Thoughts as Words

Place a notepad on that writing surface directly in front of you. Otherwise, the surface should be completely clear. For maximum engagement, singularly focus on as few things as possible.

Put pen to paper, and take notes on your thoughts about a single subject. One way of starting is to write the first word that comes to mind. Give that word its own line to leave space for adding further notes later. See what other word or expression doing that makes you think of, and write that down on the second line. Repeat this process until you have something on every line of your notepad sheet.

As you proceed, try to home in on a theme. As soon as you can, title your sheet based on that theme. A title can help you keep your train of thought from getting sidetracked. When you have something on every line of your sheet, tear it off and place it to the side where it is still visible.

In my experience, “keyword” note-taking in this manner generates the verbiage I need to write linearly and coherently. If the same proves true for you, proceed with the following.

Step 3: Assemble Your Words in Sentences

Place a note book in front of you, and journal. Take the ideas you just developed using keywords, and express them more fully in the form of complete sentences. Do this until you’ve captured the essence of your ideas. Then slide your notebook off to the side in front of your notepad sheet.

In my experience, complete-sentence journaling in this manner matures my thinking to the point where I am ready to extract long-term value from the ideas expressed. If the same proves true for you, proceed with the following.

Step 4: Edit and Rewrite Your Sentences

Place a laptop computer in front of you. Or sit down at your desktop computer with your notebook and notepad sheet. In a word processor (Notion is my app of choice), rewrite your journal entry. Refine your wording. Add elaborations. Insert points you missed.

Return to your journal entry, and use it as a checklist. Go through it line by line. Verify whether you’ve incorporated into your digital write-up everything of value from each line, and then make a checkmark next to that line. Then do the same thing with your keyword notes sheet. Whenever you notice something you missed, work it into your digital write-up.

This is how you can develop any written asset: a memo, a project plan, a how-to guide, etc.

Step 5 (Bonus): Revise for Public Consumption, and Publish

Now that you have created something of value for your own life, consider sharing it more broadly to benefit others, too! Further edit, revise, and rewrite your copy for publication. Publish it as an article or a scripted video in whatever venues you have access to: Substack, YouTube, a podcast, etc. Not only will this benefit others, but it will further benefit yourself. Pushing yourself to make your ideas clear for others will help you understand them better, too.

When we write out our ideas, we are at the same time testing, developing, arranging, crystallizing, and completing them. We imagine ourselves not only making these ideas clear to others, but making them seem as important to others as they do to ourselves. So we try to make what was vague in our minds precise and definite; what was implicit, explicit; what was disconnected, unified; what was fragmentary, whole. We frame a generalization, then try to make it as plausible as we can; we try to think of concrete illustrations of it. And as we do this, we also expose it to ourselves—and sometimes, alas, find that it is empty, untenable, or sheer nonsense. – Henry Hazlitt

Once you’ve completed step 4, creating something publishable can be surprisingly easy. Indeed, I myself just went through the above five steps to create this very essay about those steps. (See the appendix below where I show my work.)

I have found the above method to be a powerful way to “think in ink” and put my notions in motion. I hope you do, too. To unlock your intelligence and unblock your creativity, tap the power of words by following this five-step drill:

Get situated for concentrated writing.
Use keyword notetaking as an easy on-ramp into the world of words.
Use complete-sentence journaling to develop your ideas.
Use digital word processing to refine your ideas.
Publish your ideas to refine them further and to be of service to others.

Here are photos of my process in following the above steps to develop this essay about those steps.

Step 1: My writing surface

Step 2: My keyword notes

Step 3: My complete-sentence journal entry

Step 4: My personal “how-to” guide write-up for this process

Step 5: My essay manuscript

This essay originally appeared on Dan’s Substack, Developing Devotion.

More By Dan Sanchez

The Philosophy that Framed the Constitution

The Real Fourth of July: What Made America’s Independence Day Truly Revolutionary

A Hearty Breakfast for Mind and Soul

Habits of Effective Libertarians

Where Do I Get Power of Attorney Papers? Top Sources and Steps Explained

Navigating the legal landscape can be daunting, especially when it comes to obtaining power of attorney (POA) papers. Whether you’re planning for the future or need to manage a loved one’s affairs, understanding where to get these crucial documents is the first step.

The process might seem overwhelming at first, but with a bit of guidance, you’ll find it’s straightforward. From online resources to local legal aid offices, several options are available to secure the necessary POA forms. This article will outline the best places to obtain power of attorney papers, ensuring you’re well-prepared to handle any situation that arises.

Table of Contents

Understanding Power Of Attorney

A Power of Attorney (POA) grants one person, the agent, the legal authority to act on behalf of another, the principal. This enables the agent to manage the principal’s financial, medical, or other personal affairs, ensuring decisions can be made even if the principal becomes incapacitated. The types of POA include general, durable, medical, and limited.

General Power of Attorney

A General POA allows the agent to perform nearly any act that the principal could do legally. This typically includes managing bank accounts, buying or selling property, and filing taxes. However, this authority ceases if the principal becomes incapacitated or passes away.

Durable Power of Attorney

A Durable POA remains effective even if the principal becomes incapacitated. This type often includes financial and medical decisions. State laws dictate the specifics, so consulting with legal experts ensures compliance with local regulations.

Medical Power of Attorney

A Medical POA provides the agent with the power to make healthcare decisions on behalf of the principal. This includes choosing doctors, treatments, and care facilities. Hospitals and healthcare providers typically require this documentation for someone to make medical decisions for another person.

Limited Power of Attorney

A Limited POA grants the agent authority for a specific task or for a limited period. Examples include selling a car, handling a business transaction, or performing a specific act in a defined timeframe. The principal’s specifications determine the scope and duration.

These forms of POA serve different purposes and ensure that someone trusted can manage affairs when necessary, whether for everyday tasks or during emergencies.

Types Of Power Of Attorney

Understanding the various types of Power of Attorney (POA) is crucial for granting the appropriate authority to an agent. Here’s a breakdown of the different types:

General Power Of Attorney

A General Power of Attorney gives the agent broad authority to act on behalf of the principal. This includes managing financial transactions, signing documents, and handling business affairs. The authority granted by a General POA ceases if the principal becomes incapacitated.

Durable Power Of Attorney

A Durable Power of Attorney remains effective even if the principal becomes incapacitated. This type of POA covers financial and legal decisions. It ensures continuous management of the principal’s affairs without interruption due to incapacity.

Special Power Of Attorney

A Special Power of Attorney, often called a Limited Power of Attorney, grants authority for a specific task or period. Examples include selling a property or handling financial transactions for a set duration. Once the task is complete or the period ends, the authority ceases.

Medical Power Of Attorney

A Medical Power of Attorney allows the agent to make healthcare decisions on behalf of the principal. This includes choices about medical treatments, surgeries, and long-term care. It applies when the principal is unable to make decisions themselves due to medical incapacitation.

Where To Obtain Power Of Attorney Papers

Power of attorney papers can be sourced from various places, including local government offices, online services, legal firms, and financial institutions.

Local Government Offices

County clerk or recorder offices offer POA forms. These facilities provide standard templates. Visiting in-person guarantees access to accurate and government-approved documents.

Online Legal Services

Websites like LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer provide downloadable POA forms. Users can customize documents based on specific needs. Online forms offer convenience and accessibility from anywhere.

Attorneys And Legal Firms

Law firms specialize in creating customized POA documents. Legal experts ensure forms meet all regulations and reflect specific wishes. Personal consultations provide tailored advice and accurate documentation.

Financial Institutions

Banks provide POA forms for financial matters. Institutions offer documents for specific banking transactions. Contacting a bank representative ensures forms are correctly completed and notarized.

Steps To Get Power Of Attorney Papers

Obtaining power of attorney (POA) papers involves several key steps. Follow these guidelines to ensure you complete the process efficiently.

Identify The Type You Need

Determine the appropriate type of POA based on your requirements. If broad authority is needed, a General POA is suitable. If ongoing authority despite incapacity is necessary, opt for a Durable POA. For healthcare decisions, use a Medical POA. If the authority is for specific tasks or a time period, choose a Limited POA.

Gather Necessary Information And Documents

Collect essential details about the principal and the agent. This includes full names, addresses, dates of birth, and contact numbers. Obtain any specific documents required for the POA type, like medical records for a Medical POA or property deeds for a Limited POA involving real estate.

Complete The Forms

Fill out the POA forms accurately. Use templates from local government offices, online legal services, or your attorney. Ensure all requisite fields are completed and double-check for errors. Standard forms from sources like LegalZoom or Rocket Lawyer can be customized as needed.

Notarize The Document

Finalize the POA by having it notarized. Visit a notary public with the principal and agent, as both parties need to sign in the notary’s presence. Bring valid identification for verification, and ensure the document meets state-specific notarization requirements.

Cost And Time Considerations

Costs for obtaining power of attorney (POA) documents vary based on the method chosen. Online legal services like LegalZoom charge between $40 to $100 for downloadable forms. Attorneys typically charge $200 to $500 to draft customized POA documents. Local government offices often provide standard forms at minimal costs, sometimes free.

Timeframes for securing POA documents also depend on the method. Online services allow immediate access upon purchase and completion within hours. Attorney services may take several days to weeks, based on the complexity of customization. Local government offices can provide forms instantly, but notarization still requires additional time.

When considering costs and time, factor in the specific needs for the POA type. A general evaluation helps determine which source best aligns with urgency and budget.

Securing power of attorney papers is a crucial step in managing both personal and loved ones’ affairs. Understanding the different types of POA and where to obtain them ensures readiness for any situation. Whether opting for online services, local government offices, or legal firms, it’s essential to choose the method that best suits your needs and budget. Properly completing and notarizing these documents guarantees their legal validity, providing peace of mind and preparedness for future events.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a power of attorney (poa).

A Power of Attorney (POA) is a legal document that allows an individual (the principal) to grant authority to another person (the agent) to make decisions and act on their behalf in various matters.

What are the different types of Power of Attorney?

The main types are General, Durable, Medical, and Limited POA. Each type serves different purposes, such as managing financial affairs, making healthcare decisions, or handling specific tasks for a set period.

Where can I obtain Power of Attorney forms?

You can obtain POA forms from local government offices, such as county clerk or recorder offices, online legal services like LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer, attorneys, legal firms, and financial institutions such as banks.

How do I choose the right type of POA?

Identify your specific needs: A General POA offers broad authority, a Durable POA remains valid if incapacitated, a Medical POA is for healthcare decisions, and a Limited POA covers specific tasks or durations.

What information is needed to complete a POA form?

You will need details about the principal and the agent, including full names, addresses, and the scope of authority being granted. Accurate completion is crucial for the document to be valid.

How important is notarization for POA documents?

Notarization is essential as it validates the document and the identities of the signing parties. Both the principal and agent must sign the document in the presence of a notary public.

What does it cost to get a Power of Attorney?

The cost varies: Online services charge between $40 to $100, attorneys cost $200 to $500, and local government offices may offer forms for minimal or no cost.

How long does it take to get a POA?

Timeframes vary by method: Online services offer immediate access, attorney services may take days to weeks, and local offices provide forms instantly, though notarization may add extra time.

Can I use online resources for a customized POA?

Yes, online legal services like LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer provide customizable, downloadable forms to suit your specific requirements.

Can banks provide POA forms?

Yes, financial institutions such as banks offer POA forms specifically for financial matters to ensure documents are correctly completed and notarized.

What Is a Medical POA? Understanding the Role and Importance

What Is a Durable POA: Key Features and Benefits Explained

Uncategorized

How to Get a Power of Attorney Form: A Simple Step-by-Step Guide

IMAGES

Documented Essay
Power
Knowledge Is Power Essay
Knowledge IS Power
Knowledge Is Power Essay
Essay on knowledge is power in english || Knowledge is power essay writing

VIDEO

Unity is Strength story/Essay writing || Unity is power story/Essay in English
Knowledge Is Power || Essay on Knowledge is power in 200 words 👍
Essay on Hydropower in English || Hydropower Essay Writing || Essay on Hydro Electric Power ||
Unity is Strength || Man Power || 14 IR Bn Kiphire Nagaland Northeast India
June 23, 2024
Youth Power Essay/Paragraph || Youth Power Article

COMMENTS

Essay on Knowledge is Power: Samples in 100, 200, 300 Words
Essay on Knowledge is Power in 300 Words. Knowledge is deemed as the most powerful tool a human possesses. It is the cornerstone of power in our modern society. The universally acknowledged phrase 'Knowledge is power' highlights the profound impact knowledge has on individuals and society, and both. The first thing to know about knowledge ...
Essay On Power Is Power
787 Words. 4 Pages. Open Document. Power means to be on top, that there is no competition against you. I personally believe power gets you respect. People follow a powerful person. A powerful person is someone who does anything that they please in any particular way without any restraints. Another the way of having power to be financially ...
Knowledge is Power Essay
Essay on Knowledge is Power. Knowledge means understanding of something such as facts, information, description and skills. It is the source of power to man and this distinguishes him from other creatures of the universe. Though man is physically weaker than many animals, for he cannot see as far as an eagle, nor carry heavy loads as some animals.
Power Essay
The Oxbridge dictionary describes character as, "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual. strength and originality in a person's nature. a person's good reputation.". Power comes from the Greek word for power is "dunamis, physical power, force, might," as defined by the Strong Concordance. 1471 Words.
Essay on Power
500 Words Essay on Power Introduction. Power is a multifaceted concept, an omnipresent force that shapes our lives in myriad ways. It is the driving force behind human interaction, politics, and even personal relationships. It is a complex, intricate, and often controversial subject that has been the focus of countless debates through the ages. ...
Knowledge Is Power Essay
Long Essay on Knowledge is Power in English 500 words. This extended essay is suitable for students studying in classes 6,7,8, 9, and 10, respectively. This essay is written to assist and guide success to those aspiring students applying for competitive examinations. Knowledge is a broad concept with no possible ending.
Knowledge is Power Essay For Students In English
500+ Words Essay on Knowledge is Power. An individual gets knowledge from every experience in life. The knowledge that a child receives in school decides his/her future life and place in society. Knowledge is related to knowing something. It is a sum of human understanding of the world, whether it is physical, biological, social, mental or ...
The Subject and Power
This essay was written by Michel Foucault in 1982 as an afterword to Michel Foucault&colon; Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics by Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow " Why Study Power? The Question of the Subject" was written in English by Foucault; " How Is Power Exercised?" was translated from the French by Leslie Sawyer. Original Publication&colon; Le sujet et le pouvoir ...
Essay On Knowledge Is Power (Short & Long)
Short Essay On Knowledge Is Power. The saying "knowledge is power" is a timeless and powerful statement that holds true even in today's fast-paced and rapidly evolving world. Knowledge refers to the information and skills acquired through education, experience, and research. It is the foundation upon which individuals can build their ...
Essay on Knowledge is Power
Conclusion. In conclusion, knowledge is indeed power. It is a tool that enables us to understand the world, make informed decisions, and shape our destiny. It is a force that drives progress, innovation, and societal development. However, it is essential to remember that the power of knowledge must be guided by ethics, ensuring that it is used ...
Essay on Knowledge is Power [Edit & Download], Pdf
Essay on Knowledge is Power. In the quest for empowerment and progress, the aphorism "Knowledge is Power" stands as a timeless beacon, illuminating the path towards enlightenment and advancement. This profound principle, attributed to Sir Francis Bacon, underscores the pivotal role of knowledge in empowering individuals and societies to ...
Knowledge is Power Essay
200 Words Essay On Knowledge Is Power. The phrase "knowledge is power" holds a lot of truth. It means that the more knowledge an individual has, the more power they possess. Knowledge empowers individuals to make informed decisions, solve problems and understand the world around them. It gives people the tools they need to succeed in life ...
Knowledge Is Power Essay
The knowledge is power essay in English PDF explores how it can help people grow as a person and change society for good. BYJU'S essay on the topic knowledge is power is enlightening for the little ones. For more essays to improve kids' learning experience, visit BYJU'S website.
Knowledge is Power: Unveiling The True Potential of Education
The adage "knowledge is power" has endured through centuries, resonating across cultures and generations. In this essay, we embark on a journey to explore the profound implications of this timeless phrase.
The Concept of Power: an Analysis of Its Definition and Significance
In conclusion, the concept of power is complex and multifaceted, encompassing a range of different social, political, and economic phenomena. While various definitions of power have been proposed, all share a common understanding that power is central to how society operates and that power relations are constantly being negotiated and reconfigured.
Knowledge Is Power Essay for Students and Children
500+ Words Essay on Knowledge is Power. Knowledge Is Power Essay- Knowledge is something that will serve you your whole life. The most powerful thing in the world is knowledge because it can create and destroy life on earth.Moreover, knowledge helps us distinguish between humans and animals.Knowledge is the ability to use your knowledge to help others.
ENG3U1
Ashmal Ali Ms. Vitucci ENG3U1 -15 22 October 2021 Comparing Lord of the Flies and Black Panther on the Basis of Power Power: presumably one of the rarest and most controversial concepts known to man. It is not a physical object nor an emotion, but the desire for it is unimaginable. The authority that comes with power is influential enough to turn right into wrong and vice versa, and today ...
Essay on Knowledge is Power for Students
500 Words Essay On Knowledge is Power. Knowledge is the most substantial element in the world. It can make or break your life alone. Moreover, knowledge is what differentiates humans from animals. With knowledge, one can utilize their skills and make their lives better. When you have knowledge at your disposal, you can accomplish a lot in your ...
Feminist Perspectives on Power
2. Power as Resource: Liberal Feminist Approaches. Those who conceptualize power as a resource understand it as a positive social good that is currently unequally distributed. For feminists who understand power in this way, the goal is to redistribute this resource so that women will have power equal to men.
Knowledge Is Power Essay for Students in English [Easy Words]
January 10, 2021 by Sandeep. Essay on Knowledge Is Power: The greatest distinguishing factor between humans and animals is intelligence and knowledge. Education and knowledge are two entirely different things. Learning combined with experience and wisdom is collectively called knowledge. A person may be well educated and learned but may not ...
What is power?
Power is the capacity, ability and willingness to act! Every word in that definition is important for an adequate understanding of power. First, power is the capacity to act. "Capacity" means, "the facility to produce, perform or deploy". For a group to have the capacity to act means that they have developed or gathered the resources ...
Language and Power
Conceptual Approaches to Power. Bertrand Russell, logician cum philosopher and social activist, published a relatively little-known book on power when World War II was looming large in Europe (Russell, 2004).In it he asserted the fundamental importance of the concept of power in the social sciences and likened its importance to the concept of energy in the physical sciences.
Power
Additional insights into understanding power are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants. Gene Sharp provides a broad list of sources of power. [2] Sources include: authority, that is, the perception among the governed that the leader has the right to give them directives.
Definition Essay On Power
Antigone Persuasive Essay Power can have a positive or negative effect on others, if put into the wrong hands it can lead to a fatal tragedy. People in command who are in control of a tremendous amount virtue, can potentially lead to unfavorable outcome. For example in the play Antigone King Creon makes others suffer due to what he envisions is ...
How to Wield the Power of Words
Here are photos of my process in following the above steps to develop this essay about those steps. Step 1: My writing surface Step 2: My keyword notes Step 3: My complete-sentence journal entry Step 4: My personal "how-to" guide write-up for this process Step 5: My essay manuscript
Where Do I Get Power of Attorney Papers? Top Sources and Steps
Discover the ins and outs of obtaining power of attorney papers effortlessly. From understanding various POA types—General, Durable, Medical, and Limited—to knowing where to find legal forms, this guide breaks it all down. Explore online resources, local legal aid, and financial institutions to secure your POA documents efficiently and be prepared for any circumstance. Read on for detailed ...

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Essay on Knowledge is Power: Samples in 100, 200, 300 Words

Essay on Knowledge is Power in 100 Words

Essay on Knowledge is Power in 200 Words

Essay on Knowledge is Power in 300 Words

Shiva Tyagi

Connect With Us

Need help with?

Country Preference

Which English test are you planning to take?

When are you planning to take the exam?

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

What is your budget to study abroad?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

Essex Direct Admission Day

Essay on Knowledge is Power

Why is Knowledge Powerful?

Benefits of Knowledge

Prospective of Knowledge

Writing the Knowledge is Power Essay

Points to be included in the Knowledge is Power Essay

FAQs on Knowledge is Power Essay

Knowledge Is Power Essay | Essay on Knowledge Is Power for Students and Children

Short and Long Essay on Knowledge is Power in English for Students and Children

Long Essay on Knowledge is Power in English 500 words

Short Essay on Knowledge is Power in English 200 words

10 Lines on Knowledge is Power Essay in English

FAQ’s on Knowledge is Power Essay

The Subject and Power

Why Study Power? The Question of the Subject

How Is Power Exercised?

1. “ How” not in the sense of “ How does it manifest itself?” but “ By what means is it exercised?” and “ What happens when individuals exert (as they say) power over others?”

2. What constitutes the speciﬁc nature of power?

How is one to analyze the power relationship?

Relations of power and relations of strategy.

Essay On Knowledge Is Power

Short Essay On Knowledge Is Power

Long Essay On Knowledge Is Power

Introduction: Defining the Topic and Exploring Its Significance

Understanding the Meaning of Knowledge

Forms of Knowledge

Power of Knowledge

Impact of Knowledge on our Lives

How to acquire knowledge?

Benefits of Acquiring Knowledge

Conclusion: Summarizing the Arguments

Related Posts

Essay on Knowledge is Power

100 Words Essay on Knowledge is Power

The Role of Education

Knowledge and Empowerment

250 Words Essay on Knowledge is Power

The Power of Knowledge

Knowledge as a Tool of Empowerment

Knowledge in the Digital Age

500 Words Essay on Knowledge is Power

Knowledge and Society

Knowledge and Ethics

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Essay on Knowledge is Power

The Foundation of Individual Empowerment

Unleashing Potential Through Learning

Decision-Making and Problem-Solving

Catalyzing Societal Progress

Innovation and Technological Advancement

Social and Economic Development

The Collective Pursuit of Wisdom

The Role of Education

The Importance of Accessibility and Inclusivity

Fostering a Global Knowledge Society

Knowledge Is Power Essay

Importance of Knowledge

Benefits of Knowledge

Potential of Knowledge

Frequently Asked Questions on Knowledge is Power Essay

What is the potential of knowledge?

Why should kids refer to BYJU’S knowledge is power essay?

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

The Concept of Power: an Analysis of Its Definition and Significance