essay on power dynamics

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Experts Predict More Digital Innovation by 2030 Aimed at Enhancing Democracy
• 3. Power dynamics play a key role in problems and innovation

Table of Contents

• 1. The innovations these experts predict by 2030
• 2. Tech is (just) a tool
• 4. It’s all just history repeating itself
• 5. Tech causes more problems than it solves
• 6. The net effects in 10 years will be negligible
• About this canvassing of experts
• Acknowledgments

Many of the experts in this canvassing said power dynamics play a key role in technology development and social and civic innovation and have substantial impact in regard to broad societal issues. These experts highlighted the discrepancies they see in regard to who has access to power and who controls the instruments of power. Some said well-meaning individuals in positions of power do not understand the issues faced by the general public that relies upon digital platforms and systems.

While some respondents are greatly concerned about the ways in which tech companies’ capitalist interests may affect social and civic innovation in the next decade, others expect that tech and social evolution will allow the public more opportunities to advocate for change. This chapter includes comments selected from those made by all respondents, regardless of their answer to the main question about the impact of technology on innovation by 2030. It includes predictions about the types of innovations that may emerge to counter abuses or imbalances in power. The comments are organized under five subthemes: Those in power seek to maintain it; those in power have no incentive to change; government regulation could address these problems; surveillance capitalism is coming to a head; and technology can be a catalyst for advocacy against abuses of power.

Those in power seek to maintain power

Some respondents were critical of today’s digital form of market capitalism, which has created an environment that is proving to be problematic on many levels. Money equals power. Those in control of digital systems and platforms are highly motivated to remove or subsume any threats to their dominance. Market capitalism in today’s digital realm has led to a small number of large players who are driven by driving up profit.

The companies hold all the cards. And governments don’t have the expertise they need to regulate in ways that will be effective or work out well. Mark Surman

Jonathan Morgan, senior design researcher for the Wikimedia Foundation, said, “I’m mostly concerned with the role of digital platform owners and technology providers as stiflers of innovation. People are pretty locked into the tools they use to live, work and socialize. Increasingly, these activities are mediated by a small number of economically and politically powerful companies that actively squash competition, undermine and jettison open standards and protocols and resist regulation. These are anti-competitive practices that stifle innovation; they are anti-social practices that inhibit the development of new social norms. Our continued use of/dependence on the technologies they provide props up these organizations, allowing them to continue to engage in activities that undermine the fabric of our society in a variety of subtle and not-so-subtle ways.”

Mark Surman , executive director of Mozilla Foundation and co-founder of Commons Group, wrote, “Right now, the big U.S. tech companies basically write the rules of the road. If governments and citizens can take back some of that power and build up the talent and vision to create civic innovation, we’ll see the kind of social innovation we need. That said, current trends don’t bode well. The companies hold all the cards. And governments don’t have the expertise they need to regulate in ways that will be effective or work out well.”

Henning Schulzrinne , Internet Hall of Fame member and former chief technology officer for the Federal Communications Commission, commented, “In certain countries, the state will make sure that there is no social and civic innovation, at least any that fundamentally threatens the existing power arrangements. In other countries, where private industry has largely captured regulatory and legislative bodies, protections of privacy and against AI-based discrimination, for example, or mitigation of social problems will be difficult as long as they are not aligned with industry interests.”

Marc Rotenberg , executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, observed, “A small number of platforms dominate communications, and they have devised techniques to minimize opposition. Consider how social movements arose in the past. Workers could organize other workers to seek better working conditions. Activists could join together in their communities to seek changes on matters from the funding for a park to the removal of a toxic waste disposal site. But Facebook prevents the use of its platform for any organizing against Facebook. By the company’s own terms and conditions, users are not able to establish groups with names such as ‘Facebook Users for Privacy Protection’ or ‘Stop the Trolls on Facebook.’ Ironically, the company cites intellectual property law to prevent the use of its own identity by others. That is how technology firms diminish civic innovation.”

Isaac Mao , director of Sharism Lab, said, “Technologies can help facilitate some kinds of social and civic innovations at first, but eventually those market leaders of technical products become barriers to further innovations because of their profit-driven nature. Social and civic applications running on those platforms are very vulnerable. It can be an on/off fate someday, like China’s WeChat platform. Technologies running in commercial interests will also drive out other smaller players and technologies. This is harmful. We need more open technologies and open platforms run by trustable organizations.”

A pioneering researcher of human-computer interaction commented, “I am concerned that technology will effectively undermine resistance to it. I believed the opposite until only a few months ago. Now, I am stunned by the amount of tech money thrown at the ‘morals’ of artificial intelligence, just when AI and surveillance are becoming synonymous. So, I am much more concerned.”

[Federal Trade Commission]

Stuart Umpleby, retired cybernetician, professor of management and director research at George Washington University, commented, “There is currently a lot of innovation in electronic media. We can expect some successes in improving the social responsibility of social media. There is increasing participation in state and local politics due to acrimony at the national level. Artificial intelligence can be used to identify hate speech and errors and point to better information. However, any methods intended to improve social media could also be used to coarsen discussion. The balance of change may depend on who has the most money. People are becoming more adept at using social media for group discussions. People from other locations, anywhere in the world, can be involved. Hence, people with other views can be included and ideas can be shared at greater distance. The gap between the digitally literate and the digitally illiterate will grow. There will continue to be many efforts to increase digital literacy.”

Jeff Johnson , a professor of computer science at the University of San Francisco, who previously worked at Xerox, HP Labs and Sun Microsystems, responded, “Although the question considers ‘social and civic innovation’ as a positive force, it can also be negative. Gaming the system for corporate or personal benefit is a negative form of social and civic innovation. Internet worms, viruses, hackers and bots that gather people’s information, target ads and messages or wreak havoc are another form of social and civic innovation. Not all innovations are positive. In the 1990s, Richard Sclove hosted a series of citizen panels on democracy in the (still young) digital age (see the book “Governance.com: Democracy in the Digital Age”). His prognosis was positive, but at that time the main ‘social’ media consisted of email lists, electronic bulletin boards and Usenet newsgroups. The rise of Facebook, YouTube, Snapchat and the like has unfortunately turned the tide toward the negative.”

Barney Dalgarno , a professor expert in learning in 3D environments at Charles Sturt University, Australia, said, “I think there will be a push for innovations and regulations to moderate the negative impacts to privacy and unbiased information distribution, however the vested interests of those who wield political and economic power are likely to prevail. In an environment where information distribution is heavily controlled by those with a vested interest in maintaining their control, I don’t see any pathway to a widespread rebellion against the unregulated internet.”

J.M. Porup , a cybersecurity journalist, said, “America today is an oligarchy enforced by the secret police. Preventing any kind of meaningful social or political progress is essential to maintaining that status quo. Information technology gives totalitarian power to the toxic partnership between Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the so-called ‘intelligence community.’ Power desires – always – more power, and fights like hell to prevent any loss of power. This technology shift rewrites constitutional law, yet we keep citing law as though technology cares a whit for words on paper.”

Mike O’Connor , retired, a former member of the ICANN policy development community, commented, “Follow the money and ethics. The forces of good are ethical, thoughtful and resource-poor. The negative forces are scurrilous and have plenty of money to buy/leverage the tech to advance their cause.”

Keri Jaehnig , chief marketing officer for a media-marketing agency, wrote, “The development and adoption of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies will change how we live. This will make the advantaged have more opportunity and will make the poor poorer. Employment displacement will absolutely occur. Some new industry and opportunity will evolve, but it is hard to gauge at this point how much and if it will ever be enough.”

Rick Lane , a future-of-work strategist and consultant, said, “We have already seen the power of tech to create misinformation campaigns when Silicon Valley companies and their supporters manipulate data and search to promote their own policy agenda. If data and search manipulation is not addressed, then the social and civic innovation that we all hope for in this new digital age will be stifled.”

Juan Ortiz Freuler , policy fellow at the Web Foundation, predicted, “Many innovations will take place with the purpose of easing some of the social tensions and increase surveillance to neutralize the rest. Enacting big social changes will become increasingly difficult. Unless action is taken within the next decade, power and wealth will increasingly concentrate in the hands of the few, and citizens will lose capacity to coordinate in favor of systemic changes.”

Shane Kerr , lead engineer for NS1 internet domain security, wrote, “As wealth and power consolidates, traditional options to achieve success in society decline. Historically this would have created unrest and demands for reform. With modern technology, it may be possible that large minorities or even majorities of society will be able to ‘opt out’ of competition for power and prestige, and instead find alternative ways to measure success and the quality of their lives. People are already able to create, share, modify and otherwise enjoy photography, video, music and so on in ways that were barely possible to previous generations. Things in this vein will likely become more and more significant. In an ideal world, those winning the competition for power and control will be convinced that their victory is ultimately hollow without being a part of the wider human experience and competition. In a less than ideal world, they will use their power to attempt to eliminate joy and prevent anyone who does not follow their path from being happy.”

The odds are in favor of these innovations to be driven by states and by corporations, rather than by civil society. Lokman Tsui

John Skrentny , a professor of sociology at the University of California, San Diego, said, “Beliefs in (short-term) shareholder value as the reason for corporate existence and the interpretation of antitrust law that views monopolies as bad only if they hurt consumers, coupled with the Supreme Court’s distortion of democracy to allow unlimited flows of cash and unlimited gerrymandering, all align as deep forces making democracy ever more difficult to achieve and sustain in the U.S., no matter the innovation capabilities of the people.”

Doug Royer , a retired technology developer/administrator, responded, “The love of money is the root of evil. (1 Timothy 6:10 – Christian Bible – one interpretation). Companies will, and their stockholders will, continue to desire profit. People will always want things cheaper. Governments will always try to grease the loudest wheel, even when it is just noise to get attention or money. However, a society having access to trends as they happen and to the people making the decisions keeps away more manipulation of the masses than ever before possible.”

Lokman Tsui , a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, formerly Google’s head of free expression in Asia and the Pacific, commented, “I understand social and civic innovation to be innovation driven by civil society, for civil society. I believe there will be some social and civic innovation in the next decade. But I am also concerned that the odds are not in their favor. I believe that the closed and centralized nature of the new technologies of the next decade will make this very difficult. The odds are in favor of these innovations to be driven by states and by corporations, rather than by civil society. What I see happening is that, increasingly, states and corporations are forming alliances such that the development of future innovations benefit each other at the detriment of civil society. The development of the GDPR in Europe is remarkable precisely because I see it as an exception to the norm.”

Those in power have no incentive to change

Several of the experts in this canvassing expressed concerns that those in power have little incentive to change.

James S. O’Rourke IV , a University of Notre Dame professor whose research specialty is reputation management, said, “In thinking about whether technological innovations will improve or restrain society and contribute to the common good, the answer clearly is ‘yes’ to both questions. Western liberal civilizations have taken a laissez-faire approach to technology. ‘The market will sort this out,’ we’re told. In the interim, reputations are ruined, lives are pulled apart, wealth is unfairly or illegally transferred. Social and psychological trauma are the result. If technology created the dilemma we now face, technology will – without question – offer ways for us to mitigate harm and improve the lives of ordinary citizens. The problem, however, is one of incentives. Most technology firms and their entrepreneurial owners are driven far more by the accumulation of wealth than the improvement of society. ‘I’m all for improving life in this country,’ they say, ‘but only if there is clearly a market for that.’ An associated problem is that government at state and national levels is insufficiently clever to deal with such issues. The smartest, most innovative, most intellectually nimble among us don’t go to work for the government (especially in regulatory roles). The best and brightest do not run for public office. And the law always trails the effects of technology. Officials step in on behalf of the public interest long after the harm is done and the money is gone.”

Jonathan Taplin , author of “Move Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy,” commented, “Google and Facebook are two of the largest corporations in the world (measured by market capitalization). They will use their financial and lobbying power to fend off significant regulation. … I would like to believe that real progress could be made on these issues, but I’m afraid that the financial power of the internet monopolies is too strong. I am highly doubtful that real progress will be made unless there is a catastrophe resulting in an autocratic state that leads to true citizen revolt.”

Art Brodsky , a self-employed consultant, wrote, “I would like to think technology could help the situation, but we’ve seen no sign of that so far. Big companies have too much to gain and too little to lose as a result of current abuses. They have no incentives to do anything. The government also is powerless. … We have seen no evidence that tech companies have the best interests of the public at heart. Through lax enforcement of antitrust laws and little privacy protection, they focus on their bottom line only. As with other businesses, there is no sense of social responsibility and no institution bold enough to impose one.”

Bernie Hogan, senior research fellow at Oxford Internet Institute, said, “Technology warps scales in favour of those who can wield the technology. It has always been the case, from the gun, the stirrup, the telephone and now the internet. This time, however, technology is operating on scales that we simply do not comprehend and cannot meaningfully do so. Google and Facebook can only make inferences about the rankings of their search results and newsfeeds, respectively; they cannot give a clear answer about why precisely one element showed up before another. High frequency trading algorithms are similarly abstract and opaque. … The notion that we are either going to have ‘no change’ or substantial improvement is remarkably rosy. We are much more likely to have increased inequality, greater more effective propaganda and dissent codified and monitored. We will see some change in data security. Mostly we will see advances in health, particularly in areas where big data classification is useful such as detecting drug interactions, classifying genes and so forth. In areas that require extensive human coordination, we are only likely to see more attempts at control and centralisation along with the march of stark inequality.”

Ellery Biddle , an advocacy director for Global Voices whose specialty is protection of online speech and fundamental digital rights, said, “Facebook, Google and Amazon each have a unique monopoly on the types of information they organize and offer to users. This means they are also the primary sources of many of our biggest problems. Unfortunately, all three of these companies have also occupied a significant amount of space (and injected a lot of money) in the academic, policy and civil society conversations that are intended to solve these problems. What we are left with is a situation of capture, in which the companies are creating problems with one hand and then presenting solutions for them with another. Take Facebook. This company has built a revenue model around the idea that clicks are good/profitable (as they generate ad revenue) and that material that receives lots of clicks should be given more visibility. It has also found unprecedented ways to profit from people’s data. This is what lies at the core of the fake news/disinformation problem. Fake news was always there, it just wasn’t so pervasive or present on our screens until we had a company that built a revenue model on clicks/shock value. In responding to the issue, Facebook has put on a great performance of engaging with fact-checkers and talking about disinformation dynamics. But the company has not changed its basic revenue model, which is the root of the problem. Facebook is never going to change this on its own – it makes far too much money for this to be a viable option. So, the solution must lie in some kind of regulation. Data-protection rules could actually have some impact here, as they would force the company to shift its practices away from endless data collection and tracking, which are deeply intertwined with the ‘engagement’ revenue model. We need to move away from this and seek solutions outside of these big tech companies. There may be other kinds of technology that could really change the game here, and bring us back to a more distributed, decentralized internet, but this has yet to take off.”

Bill D. Herman , a researcher working at the intersection of human rights and technology, wrote, “Private industry has every incentive to create more addictive tech, and little incentive to improve society. Innovation around that won’t happen in a direction that helps, at least not in total.”

There may be other kinds of technology that could really change the game here, and bring us back to a more distributed, decentralized internet, but this has yet to take off. Ellery Biddle

Philippe Blanchard , founder of Futurous, an innovation consultancy based in Switzerland, responded, “The major difficulty in the rise of a social and civic innovation comes from the pervasiveness of the general-purpose technologies and the globalisation. Technology will develop faster in less-regulated environments, and the critical mass of some use/technologies will push for its generalization worldwide.”

Emilio Velis , executive director of the Appropedia Foundation, commented, “There is a growing involvement of the internet and technology on behalf of society for civic change. There will undoubtedly be a great surge of these innovations in the next few years. The only drawback to this is the lack of economic incentives to the way they work, especially for underdeveloped settings. How can innovations thrive and be effective for the bottom of the pyramid?”

Leila Bighash , an assistant professor of communication at the University of Arizona, expert in online public information, news and social media, said, “While I believe technology will be used by democratic adversaries to subvert institutions and processes, technology will also continue to be used to try to mitigate those efforts. There are issues with big tech companies not having incentives to pursue pro-democracy projects. Unfortunately, many of them, with their advocacy of completely free/open speech, have created a situation where all speech is given a platform, and sometimes the messages that spread are harmful. Nonprofits and others do not have the means that those big tech companies have, so citizens and governments have to start pressuring or incentivizing large companies to engage in activities that will bolster democracy. If this pressure works, then social and civic innovation at a mass scale will occur. If the pressure doesn’t work, there may still be some smaller groups pursuing this innovation but it will not occur as quickly. We already see some efforts to build tools that mark sources of news on social media with indicators of their veracity. Volunteer groups who are highly engaged and motivated could be created/used to suss out mis/disinformation. Companies themselves could be incentivized by governments or citizen groups to remove messages, including deepfakes and other disinformation. Communication researchers are learning how fact-checking works to correct people’s misinformed views, and this research could help create new systems, tools and groups. Governments will have to start creating new laws, but of course this will likely be the slowest to move.”

Government regulation could address these issues

Many respondents to this canvassing suggest that government regulation may be the key to incentivizing companies to change.

Tracey Follows , futurist and founder of Futuremade, a futures consultancy based in the UK, wrote, “I feel that there is enough government interest in using technology to mitigate some of the risks, inequalities and harms that are emerging from the digital world. Most governments do not want to upset the monopolistic, global platforms that drive growth and create employment, and have not to date pressured them to pay their taxes and to come under regulatory policies. That will change over the next five years. In the UK, the government is looking at new regulatory structures to prevent ‘online harms’ and is also calling for tighter restrictions on the type of content that appears in social feeds and online in general. Hard to say how successful this will be national or regional governments play a cat and mouse game with global players. However, I think things will change and change quickly once the public cotton-on to facial recognition and voice assistance as surveillance. Already there are now questions being asked and court cases being heard about the infringement of privacy from facial recognition systems being used by, for example, the police. Coupled with further awareness of China’s social credit system, ordinary folk are about to wake up to a whole lot more than Alexa putting the coffee on in the morning. The governments will be forced to respond otherwise western citizens will begin to find ways to protest at their lack of privacy and start suing companies for the degradation of their mental health due to surveillance.”

I think new tools will likely be created to strengthen the voices of workers and the disadvantaged. Ioana Marinescu

Ann Adams , a retired technology worker, commented, “Once the profit model changes, mitigation will follow. Unfortunately, governments have to intervene, as business currently has no incentive to change.”

Ioana Marinescu , an assistant professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice, an expert in labor policy, responded, “I think new tools will likely be created to strengthen the voices of workers and the disadvantaged. These tools’ emergence would be strengthened by regulations that empower people.”

Susan Price , founder and CEO of Firecat Studio, a user-centered design and communication technologies expert, said, “As the technology and civic leaders’ understanding of the issues mature together we’ll see the pain lessen over time as more appropriate regulation is put into place.”

Melissa Michelson , a professor of political science at Menlo College and author of “Mobilizing Inclusion: Redefining Citizenship Through Get-Out-the-Vote Campaigns,” wrote, “Despite the many shortcomings and negative impacts of the digital age, I remain optimistic that innovators and leaders will find ways to overcome those negatives to use digital tools to allow for overall positive impacts on our social and civic lives. Every generation is threatened by the perceived drawbacks of new communication technologies, including television and telephones. Change is scary, and it can be easier to see the threats than the promise, but I believe that civic-minded people will find ways to control those negatives and allow for the benefits of the digital world to enhance and strengthen our democracy, whether that is through regulation, market competition or other new technologies that we cannot yet imagine.”

Roger E.A. Farmer , research director at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, London, and professor of economics at the University of Warwick, author of “Prosperity for All,” wrote, “There is no yes-or-no answer to this question. Technology is already influencing the political process. A lot depends on how tech-media giants are regulated. Twitter, Instagram and Facebook are monopolies in the transmission of culture in the same way AT&T was a monopoly in the telecommunications industry in earlier decades. They should be broken up or regulated and treated as media organizations by the courts.”

While some experts saw potential in government regulation, others debated if governments will be able to address these power imbalances and if potential regulation will solve any of the current issues. They suggest that among the potential hang-ups to meaningful regulatory change is the fact that many lawmakers are ill-equipped to create such legislation. They also question the potential efficacy of regulation.

Doc Searls , internet pioneer and editor-in-chief of Linux Journal, said, “For most people, the first response to disturbing disruptions is regulatory: ‘Give us new privacy laws!’ ‘Break up Big Tech.’ ‘Turn Silicon Valley back into fruit orchards!’ But that puts the regulatory cart in front of the development horse. We need development before everything. And we need norms after that. Those are the horses and the harnesses. The regulatory cart should follow the lead of both. With the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) in Europe we have a helpful lesson in how creating regulations in the absence of tech is a giant fail. What the GDPR does is address wrongdoing by perpetrators who are highly incentivized financially to keep doing all the wrong things they’ve been doing ever since they found they could track people like marked animals for the purpose of harvesting data about personal activities and using that data to aim ‘relevant,’ ‘interest-based’ and ‘interactive’ ads at those people’s eyeballs everywhere they go in the digital world. Those ads don’t work … but they do pay the perps; and it’s too damned easy for the perps to put up insincere and misleading ‘cookie notices’ that obtain equally insincere ‘consent’ and thus to claim compliance. Successfully! At least so far. Meanwhile, all we need as individuals is the digital equivalent of privacy technologies we’ve had for the duration in the natural world: clothing and shelter. Getting those in the virtual world is job one. Fortunately, some of us are already on the case. Stay tuned.”

Bruce Bimber , a professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, commented, “The scale of social innovation needed to bring societies successfully into the future is enormous. At least two problems arise. The first is that we can’t get there incrementally, just by accumulating bits and pieces of adaptation and innovation; yet the sort of big change need would disrupt too many powerful interests invested in the slowly changing status quo, from which so much money can be made. The second is that political institutions in many places have been too much hollowed out, polarized and captured to provide leadership for bold change.”

Annemarie Bridy , a professor of law specializing in the impact of new technologies on existing legal frameworks, wrote, “In recent public hearings, policymakers have demonstrated repeatedly that they lack a basic understanding of how today’s most socially consequential technologies work. Without better-informed policymakers, we have little hope of effectively regulating developing technologies that profoundly impact human behavior and social welfare, including those involving automated decision-making and pervasive biometric surveillance.”

Neal Gorenflo , co-founder, chief editor and executive director at Shareable, a nonprofit news outlet that has covered the latest innovations in the sharing economy, responded, “If history is any guide, the United States should see a civic and perhaps even a religious revival. However, circumstances are different, the power imbalances may be at or progress to a point of no return soon. The ever-increasing power and pervasiveness of technology, the speed at which it is deployed, the inability of government and public to even understand it, never mind control it, the downgrading of our individual and collective behavior and decision making all bring into question if citizens can rally like we have before. I hope we can aim to be part of that, but I have my doubts, too. We may have been asleep at the wheel too long to avert disaster.”

Some experts said change may best be found in the design of innovative new companies and tools that are built with public betterment in mind.

Ethan Zuckerman , director of MIT’s Center for Civic Media and co-founder of Global Voices, said, “Development of social media technologies over the past 20 years has suffered from the false assumption that technology is and can be neutral. The assumption was that platforms like Facebook could be used for good or for ill, and that platform designers should work to keep their tools as open to as many uses as possible. We’re now realizing that no technologies are neutral. Build a technology around the idea of increasing engagement and you’re likely to create incentives for clickbait and disinformation. Over the next 10 years, I hope to see a wave of new platforms consciously designed to evoke different civic behaviors. We need mass innovation in design of social tools that help us bridge fragmentation and polarization, bring diversity into our media landscapes and help find common ground between disparate groups. With these as conscious design goals, technology could be a powerful positive force for civic change. If we don’t take this challenge seriously and assume that we’re stuck with mass-market tools, we won’t see positive civic outcomes from technological tools.”

Development of social media technologies over the past 20 years has suffered from the false assumption that technology is and can be neutral. Ethan Zuckerman

Alex Halavais , an associate professor of critical data studies at Arizona State University, wrote, “There has long been a tension between civic uses of networked technologies and their co-option by both industrial and government actors. From open source projects, including things like Wikipedia, to the blogosphere, the early social web has largely given way to advertising-based platformization. Throughout this process there have been attempts to make space for more civic and public online spaces, but these have met with relatively meager success. There is a growing backlash against the corporate web, which creates the opportunity for new projects within the cooperative web. These are hardly a sure thing, of course, but there seems to be a growing interest in approaches that ‘route around’ corporate excesses by platforms that seem beholden to advertisers, and to a much lesser degree to government regulation. We already know how to build cooperative online spaces, and revelations of the last couple of years are providing ways for those who interact online to seek out alternatives at a growing rate.”

Mark Andrejevic , an associate professor of communications at the University of Iowa, commented, “It is possible that we will see significant social and civic innovation in other regions than the U.S., but I am not optimistic about our current trajectory because the tools that we rely on for civic life are part of the problem. We have entrusted so much of our information ecosphere to huge commercial platforms that have evolved to fit neatly with the means and modes of contemporary information consumption in ways that are not conducive to the formation of functional civic dispositions. This is the problem we face: To innovate at the civic level we need communication systems and practices that allow us to deliberate in good faith, to recognize the claims of others we do not know, to form ‘imagined communities’ that bind us to a sense of shared, common or overlapping public interests. There is a Catch-22 involved here: We need to create new tools, but to create new tools we need civically functional modes and means of communication to start with. This is not to say that there is no way out or that history has somehow stopped. It is to suggest that we have reached the point that successful social and civic innovation will only result from a profound crisis or social breakdown. We will be building on the ruins. We have demonstrated that even when we see the coming crisis we have lost the ability to avert it. This strange paralysis haunts our current moment economically, politically and environmentally.”

Surveillance capitalism is coming to a head

Surveillance capitalism is a term used to describe the market-driven business practice of digital platform providers and others of offering a “free” or reduced-rate service while collecting data about users to sell to third parties, often for marketing purposes. Many of the experts in this canvassing see this as a major underlying flaw in the design of today’s digital information platforms – the primary cause of many digital threats to democracy. Some experts believe that public outcry about how their data are being used could be a catalyst for changes in privacy law.

Christian Huitema , president at Private Octopus and longtime internet developer and administrator, said, “Surveillance is a business model. Asking surveillance companies to be more respectful of privacy is asking them to make less profit. This is not going to happen without some kind of coercion. That may come from laws and regulations, but companies are pretty efficient lobbyists. Laws and regulations will only happen if a popular movement pushes them. Actually, if such a popular movement develops, it might start pushing back against the pillaging of personal data. That would be a first step in reining in the surveillance capitalists.”

Seth Finkelstein , programmer, consultant and Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Pioneer of the Electronic Frontier Award winner, wrote, “I’m not hopeful about ameliorating the social media hate mobs. The driving causes there are too deeply linked to the incentives from outrage-mongering. I should note there’s a cottage industry in advice about social media pitfalls and good conduct. But this is hardly better than the simplistic ‘If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.’ That’s not bad advice in itself, but it’s no substitute for something comparable to laws and regulations against fraud. Corporations that have their entire focus on selling advertising around outrage and surveillance are not stewards of news, democratic institutions, beneficial self-expression and so on. They are not ever going to become such stewards, as that is not what they do. However, it is generally not a good career strategy for someone to advocate programs such as extensive public funding of news and education, strong worker protections, laws encouraging unions, general support of public goods (that will likely not produce speaking fees or think-tank grants from those corporations). I suspect some the recent interest in the effects of ‘algorithms’ is in part a way of talking about these problems in a more politically acceptable manner, without directly addressing capitalism. This is all tied into the issues of inequality, plutocracy and the destruction of civic spaces. Monopolistic big businesses aren’t your friend, unless you’re a plutocrat. Either such companies are reined in, or society becomes highly distorted by their profit imperatives. We can make minor changes around the edges here, with stronger data protection laws, or demanding the marginalization of some specific bad actors who have grabbed the attention of a bunch of pundits. But that is all simply addressing the worst symptoms, not the cause. The particular technological background is different in various eras. But we shouldn’t let that blind us to the historical underlying fundamental political conflict.”

Digital technology will continue to provide mechanisms for violating privacy and trust that outstrip mechanisms for protecting them. Scott Burleigh

David P. Reed , pioneering architect of the internet, an expert in networking, spectrum and internet policy, wrote, “Social and civic innovation will be countered very effectively by technological surveillance and behavior modification technologies being developed to maximize corporate profitability. This highly effective technology inhabits the very tools of future social and civic innovation, enabling money to be directed efficiently to control each innovation in the direction that serves interests other than those of the citizens themselves.”

Scott Burleigh , principal engineer at a major U.S. agency, commented, “The negatives of the digital age are rooted in the growing elusiveness of privacy and of trust. Digital technology will continue to provide mechanisms for violating privacy and trust that outstrip mechanisms for protecting them. People who care about these things will come to spend as little time on the grid as possible. I think there are technologies that actually could help, and I would like to believe that they will, that I’m wrong about this. But I don’t think I am.”

Vince Carducci , researcher of new uses of communication to mobilize civil society and dean at the College of Creative Studies, predicted, “What has variously been termed ‘platform’ or ‘surveillance’ capitalism will not prevent social innovation per se so much as direct it a particular way. Twentieth-century institutions such as unions, state bureaucracies and social welfare systems will continue to be disrupted by technologies that concentrate power in fewer hands.”

Matt Moore , innovation manager at Disruptor’s Handbook, Sydney, Australia, said, “Technologies will help and hinder social and civic innovation. They will drive people apart. They will bring people together. Based on our track record, these outcomes are inevitable. Their scale and scope are still largely unknown. The first 20 years of the World Wide Web (from, say, 1990 to 2010) gave many hints of new communities, new social possibilities. To me, these feel like they have been lost – or at least obscured. The web feels like a far more corporate space, controlled by a small number of large companies (Facebook, Google, Amazon) whose main business model is surveillance capitalism. Our cities will be ever more filled with sensors producing data that will feed into artificial intelligence systems. In theory, this will make cities more efficient. In practice, it may make them more chaotic – as large volumes of partial, biased data give us the illusion of omniscience. If data truly is the ‘new oil’ then that presumably means we will fight wars over it and its side effects will be toxic and expensive. On the plus side, as demographics change, technology can help us form the new communities (of age, identity, interdependence) that we will need in the next decade.”

Scott B. MacDonald , an experienced chief economist and international economic adviser, wrote, “We should be very deeply concerned that technology will be used for better control and influencing of people and not necessarily for their betterment. The more information we know about people can allow a better customization of their lifestyle, but it provides knowledge of what they read and think. Social media and the like also will be formed by influencers, who will seek to determine what is morally right – either arch-conservative ideas or social justice warrior frameworks, both of which lend themselves to a ‘Brave New World’ landscape where you don’t have to think; you can discuss, but only as long as your views conform with the views passed via technology from the commanding heights.”

David Cake , an active leader of ICANN’s Non-Commercial Users Constituency, commented, “Privacy and surveillance is becoming understood as one of the largest, and most complex, issues that must be addressed in the wake of technological change. Attitudes to privacy is emerging as one of the biggest dividers in responses to social and civic innovation. It is clear that privacy and surveillance concerns will only be partially mitigated, as surveillance becomes increasingly practical. But attitudes to use of surveillance techniques will be a major social divider between nations and societies. We see huge rifts emerging around the issue (such as attitudes to the GDPR) and there are certainly nations who are pushing ahead with aggressive surveillance and social control mechanisms. But the existence of the GDPR, and the widespread acceptance of the need for it, is a hopeful sign that acceptance of the need to regulate privacy invasive practices is rising.”

Some respondents were hopeful that these issues will be worked out if new economic systems are designed and implemented to meet the needs of the digital age. One of them is Henry Lieberman , a research scientist at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL). He wrote, “The continued progress of science will make advances in all areas, such as physical and mental health, etc. The perceived ‘dangers’ of digital technology – loss of privacy, job loss, fake news and hate speech, ‘dehumanization’ of society, etc., are mostly pathologies of capitalism, not pathologies of technology. The next economic systems won’t have the perverse incentives of capitalism that lead to most of these problems. See http://www.whycantwe.org/ .”

A pair of experts said government surveillance is a growing issue that will be of great consequence in the coming decade.

John Sniadowski , a systems architect based in the UK, wrote, “Many sovereign states are busily weaponising digital platforms to disseminate misinformation, AKA propaganda. In decades prior to the internet, states would regulate the broadcast media. Now they take action to assert control over digital lives by using technology to increasingly track individuals on a scale never before possible. Also, by enacting laws enforcing the use of ‘digital surveillance’ via gagging rules and other enforcement laws, it becomes increasingly difficult for individuals to lawfully protest. Also, technological advances allow the building of the so-called ‘great firewall of China’ where all but the most sophisticated digital citizen is denied information channels that the state consider prohibited and illegal content.”

Rob Frieden , a professor of telecommunications and law at Penn State who previously worked with Motorola and has held senior policy-making positions at the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, said, “Sadly, I do not see individual or even collective ‘self-help’ efforts as having sufficient effectiveness vis-a-vis the tools available in a surveillance society. Governments appear to have a nearly unlimited budget to acquire the latest and greatest technologies for surveillance. How can an off-the-shelf encryption option providing ‘pretty good privacy’ match the power, range and resources available to governments?”

Technology can be a catalyst for advocacy against abuses of power

Many of these experts say that power imbalances and privacy concerns may mobilize the citizenry to push for change. Technology facilitates connecting with like-minded others to inform them of maleficence and advocate for redress. Just as previous digital movements have used technology to rally people together for causes in the past decade (e.g., Arab Spring , Black Lives Matter , the #MeToo movement , the Women’s March ), a number of these experts anticipate future movements will continue to harness technological tools during the coming decade.

Alexander B. Howard , independent writer, digital governance expert and open-government advocate, said, “Civic innovation in the U.S. has come from multiple sources in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Cities, states, Congress, federal agencies and even the courts will all build better services, interfaces and governance frameworks for public access to information, participation, policymaking and voter registration. So will existing tech companies that work with them, along with ones yet to be founded that will pioneer models for participatory media that don’t depend on surveillance capitalism. Media companies, particularly nonprofits, will be a key force for innovation in connecting the public writ large and specific communities to trustworthy information and one another by adopting and developing both open and closed networks. Libraries and schools will perform similar roles in many communities, as teachers continue to experiment with improving education. Researchers and scientists at universities will collaborate with watchdogs, technologists and government to build better tools and approaches.”

Technology change is fundamentally disruptive – in other words: The more technology changes, the more things stay insane. Micah Altman

Charlie Firestone , executive director of the Communications and Society Program and vice president, Aspen Institute, wrote, “I am optimistic about the use of technologies towards positive uses in addressing our democratic society. I think this will come as a reaction to the abuses that have given rise to the ‘techlash.’ As abuses increase, which will likely happen in the coming few years, a reaction will bring reforms that will enhance democratic elements such as 1) civic participation and dialogue; 2) more widespread registration, financial contributions and voting; and 3) connecting to neighbors.”

Micah Altman , director of the Center for Research in Equitable and Open Scholarship at MIT, commented, “A 19th century French critic famously quipped: ‘The more things change, the more they stay the same.’ And there are many regularities in human preferences; limits on individual human physical, emotional and cognitive performance; and entrenched societal interests that create substantial inertia in human social and civic institutions. However, in the last decade and a half we’ve witnessed social-media-powered revolutions, crowd-sourced surveillance and countersurveillance, do-it-yourself redistricting and even a public-participation draft of a national constitution. This decade will see many more experiments, some will have impact, a few will stick. Technology change is fundamentally disruptive – in other words: The more technology changes, the more things stay insane.”

Christopher Savage , a policy entrepreneur, responded, “Technology always starts with the rich/privileged and then diffuses to everyone else. Electric lighting. Cars. Landline phones. TVs. Computers. Mobile phones. Etc. This is going to happen as well with the means of influence over ideology and opinion, and, thus, with political power. Over the last decade professional political/policy folks have begun to learn to use technology tools (from cable news to email lists to targeted ads to Twitter-enabled flash mobs) to do what they’ve always done: create pressure on elected officials and bureaucrats to do what the professionals want. But the democratizing effects of widely dispersed tools for reaching potential political allies at the grassroots level, combined with growing populist/popular distrust of traditional institutions and interest groups, will begin to erode the message control of those groups. The internet has disintermediated countless institutions that had long had bottleneck control in their domains – from newspapers to taxicab companies to hotels to travel agents. Traditional influencers of opinion and ideology (interest groups and political parties) are ripe for disintermediation as well.”

Douglas Rushkoff , a media theorist, author and professor of media at City University of New York, said, “Interesting that you didn’t have an answer that was more like, ‘Technology will hamper but not prevent our ability to enact social and civic innovation.’ Tech will make it harder, but it won’t prevent us from doing so. As inequality increases, eventually people will need to turn to one another for mutual aid. Communities will have to form for basic survival. The wealthy may move into augmented realities in order to shield themselves from the realities of the 99%, but most others will begin to find rapport and then solidarity by looking up from tech at one another, instead.”

Jamais Cascio , a distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future selected by Foreign Policy magazine in its “Top 100 Global Thinkers” predicted, “By 2030 the benefits of these social, civic and technological innovations won’t be fully visible. The primary driver for ultimately succeeding in beneficial innovation is, in my view, generational, not just technological. Millennials and (in other regions) similar cohorts that grew up surrounded by networked communications will be taking on greater political, economic and social authority. These are people for whom effectively all media has been diverse, hyperbolic and created for ongoing engagement (not just one-and-done watching). They are likely to have greater skills at recognizing manipulation and seeing webs of influence (rather than lines).”

Charles Ess , a professor of digital ethics at the University of Oslo, said, “Despite the looming, if not all but overwhelming, threats of surveillance capitalism versus the Chinese social credit system, there are some encouraging signs that people can develop and exploit the more-positive possibilities of current and emerging technologies. First of all, however, it seems clear that putting hope in technology alone is simply mistaken if not counterproductive. As Merlyna Lim (2018) has convincingly demonstrated in her extensive analysis of global protests since 2010, successful activist movements and ensuring social and political transformations depend on ‘hybrid human-communication-information networks that include social media’ – but in which ‘the human body will always be the most essential and central instrument.’ (‘ Roots, Routes and Routers: Communications and Media of Contemporary Social Movements .’ Journalism and Communication Monographs. May 2018.) The rising interest in hacker spaces, DIY and so on shows some indication that at least some numbers of people are increasingly interested in better understanding and utilizing these technologies in the name of good lives of flourishing and democracy, rather than simple consumption. If these movements can be encouraged, such human-social-technological amalgams will continue to spark eruptions of activity and movements in the right directions – as at least counterexamples and counterweights to the otherwise much darker and daunting developments.”

Gina Neff , senior research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute studying innovation and digital transformation, wrote, “Without broader participation in the conversations today that lead to the tools of tomorrow, civil society will be left behind. Too many people are being left behind in the decisions about today’s technologies and data ecosystems.”

Rey Junco , director of research at CIRCLE in the Tisch College of Civic Life at Tufts University, observed, “We have seen social technologies be used for good and to promote social and civic change. CIRCLE conducted polling of youth aged 18-24 around the 2018 midterm elections. A relevant finding from this polling was that youth were much more engaged in offline activism (such as attending a march, sitting in or occupying a place as an act of civil disobedience, walking out of school or college to make a statement or participating in a union strike) in 2018 than in 2016 and that this increase in participation is significantly correlated to online activism (or what had traditionally be termed ‘slacktivism’). In other words, there is clearly evidence that technology use can spur civic innovation and lead to the spread and uptake of youth movements. The prototypical example of such a movement is the gun violence prevention movement. For months leading up to the 2018 election cycle, young people highlighted the problem of gun violence and school safety in many communities and made it part of the national conversation, which made a sizable impact in politics and in the media. Parkland students founded Never Again MSD , which called for protests and demonstrations to lobby for anti-gun violence legislation and co-organized the March for Our Lives in Washington, D.C., along with numerous voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts. They used social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to spread their message, and in turn caught the attention of other young people across the nation. Indeed, this movement elevated the conversation around gun violence prevention to a central theme for the 2018 midterms. Therefore we can expect, at some point, that technology will be used not only to further and spur social and civic innovation, but also to help solve some of the problems that said technology has created – such as the spread of misinformation and the contributions to political polarization.”

Axel Bruns , a professor at the Digital Media Research Centre at Queensland University of Technology, said, “Adversity breeds innovation, and the present moment is one of severe adversity both for society in general and for a range of distinct societal groups in particular. At the same time that technologies are being used to surveil, control and attack them, such groups are also innovatively repurposing technologies to respond, resist and fight back. While this will generate significant change, it will not simply have uniformly positive or negative outcomes – the same tools that are being used constructively by minorities to assert and protect their identity and interests are also being used destructively by other fringe groups to disrupt and interfere with such processes. Technology is not neutral in any of this, but it is also not inherently a force for good or bad.”

Paola Ricaurte , a fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, wrote, “As technologies evolve with new functionalities, awareness about their risks and harms will increase. People will demand the improvement of their quality of life, the respect for human rights and the environment. However, there will be greater difficulties for those who are excluded from the digital economy to participate actively in the generation of new knowledge and to resist against the power of big tech.”

At the same time that technologies are being used to surveil, control and attack them, such groups are also innovatively repurposing technologies to respond, resist and fight back. Axel Bruns

Prateek Raj , an assistant professor in strategy and economics at Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, commented, “Technology is already shaping social and civic institutions in developing countries like India. We live in a digital world, and it is bound to shape our physical reality. As long as local grassroots activism is strong, we can expect positive innovations driven by technology to happen as well. The key issue, however, is to make sure that no single entity has too much power in the digital world, so that it can block civic innovations from gaining salience. One such threat is the crisis in local journalism due to the drying up of advertising revenue (that today goes to digital giants), and prioritization of visceral content in online social media feeds.”

Jaime McCauley , an associate professor of sociology at Coastal Carolina University expert in social movements and social change, observed, “Despite its shortcomings, social media and technology have proven to be useful in civic engagement, from the Arab Spring to neighborhoods organizing on local issues. Human history is one of innovation. We will continue to use whatever tools are available to us for good AND ill. Hopefully, good will win out.”

Banning Garrett , an independent consultant and futurist, said, “Much of the problem with technology has been a result of its democratization. While the current focus is on the extraordinary power and wealth of the big tech companies and their ability to harvest vast amounts of our data for commercial purposes, it is also case that technology has been democratized and put into the hands of users incredibly powerful tools of empowerment. These technologies – both the hardware like iPhones and platforms like Facebook – are powerful tools for individuals to not only ‘publish’ their views but also to organize others to act politically. We have already seen this for the last decade, of course, but it could take new and powerful forms in the future as virtual communities become better organized and more powerful politically, bypassing existing political parties and influencing institutions and political outcomes directly. How this will all evolve will not depend on technology but on developments in the economy and political leadership. The post-Trump era could be more of the same divisive, partisan politics, or it could move toward a rejection of the current trends. Social and civic innovation will influence which direction the country goes and will also be influenced by the trends.”

William L. Schrader , founder of PSINet and internet pioneer, now with Logixedge, predicted, “I see more freedom coming for oppressed people throughout the world. Whether it is LGBTQ, people of color, people of caste, people with or without money, people of religion – I see the technology supporting social media actively leveling the playing field for all. And NO, it will not be complete by 2030, but who would have thought that we’d have gotten this far in progressing positively by 2019 after Stonewall riots in 1969? The educated populace will win over the uneducated, the unbiased will win over the biased, and the belief that people are basically GOOD will prevail. But it will take time. We all have a choice to be positive or negative, and I stand by my beliefs that the internet, in general, will be an overall help to society in every way.”

Mike Gaudreau , a retired entrepreneur and business leader, wrote, “Polarization of politics will continue and positions will harden in the U.S. two-party system. The left will become too utopian and the right will veer toward national socialism that suits those who think immigrants are the cause of their issues. I fear there may be another civil war in the U.S. in the next 10 to 20 years, or at least a period of upheaval as seen in the 1960s.”

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Trust, Facts & Democracy

Most Popular

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University

Marketing Aug 1, 2016

Understanding power dynamics will make you more persuasive, how powerful you feel affects the messages you convey—and the ones you want to hear..

This audio is powered by Spokn.

David Dubois

Derek D. Rucker

Adam D. Galinsky

Yevgenia Nayberg

Persuasion is a fundamental component of communication, whether between brands and consumers, within organizations, or in everyday discussions.

So how can you be more persuasive?

One important factor can be whether to stress competence or warmth in a message. For marketers, this translates to deciding whether to communicate or advertise aspects of your firm’s expertise and efficiency or your firm’s sincerity and approachability.

But, when should you stress competence versus warmth? The answer can sometimes depend on the feeling of power experienced by both the communicator and the audience, according to research by Derek Rucker , a professor of marketing at the Kellogg School.

“The relationship between audience and communicator power is dynamic. Our research stressed the importance of knowing both pieces of the puzzle.”

Rucker and his colleagues found that audiences who felt powerful were more swayed by pitches that focused on competence and skillfulness, whereas those who felt powerless were more persuaded by pitches that emphasized warmth and sincerity. This research challenges a long-discussed assumption that powerful people always hold sway and powerless people are always easier to bend.

Learn more about Kellogg’s executive education program on strategic marketing communications in the digital age here .

Power Dynamics and Persuasion

Rucker and his coauthors— David Dubois of INSEAD and Adam Galinsky of Columbia University—explored the relationship between power and persuasion in four experiments. The experiments rely on techniques to temporarily affect how powerful participants feel in the moment. In one experiment, for instance, participants were asked to write sentences using either powerful words (like “authority” and “dominates”) or powerless ones (like “obey” and “submits”). In another, participants were told to recall an instance in which they felt either powerful or powerless.

After being placed into a state of low or high power, participants were assigned to be either communicators or audience members. Communicators were tasked with persuading the audience to, for example, use a new gym facility or dine at a specific restaurant. In multiple experiments, the researchers had either “high-power communicators” or “low-power communicators” deliver messages to “high-power audiences” or “low-power audiences.”

Across the experiments, the researchers observed two clear trends.

First, the power of the communicator influenced the type of arguments they used. High-power communicators gravitated toward more competence-related arguments, whereas low-power communicators used more warmth-related arguments.

Second, high-power audiences were more persuaded by messages from high-power communicators. And low-power audiences were more persuaded by messages from low-power communicators.

Matching Mindsets

Why did this happen?

“When people feel powerful, they appear to care more about competence, and they deem that as important,” Rucker says. “So, high-power communicators use competence arguments more, and those arguments are more appealing to high-power audiences. Conversely, when people feel powerless they appear to care more about warmth, and so low-power communicators use warmth arguments more, and these arguments are more appealing to low-power audiences.”

In other words, when a communicator’s perspective aligns well with that of her audience, she is more likely to use arguments that matter to them. And, of course, the opposite is true when the power levels of the communicator and audience are not aligned.

For instance, “a person in a high-power mindset might talk about the competence of a charity to a person in a low-power mindsest. The high-power mindset might lead the communicator to emphasize competence,” Rucker says. “But the person in the low-power mindset might think, ‘They might be competent to carry out their mission, but can they be trusted?’ And the reverse is true. A person in a low-power mindset might say, ‘This restaurant is so friendly and inviting.’ But a person in a high-power mindset might think, ‘That’s fine, but I’m interested in the quality of the food.’”

So a mismatch in the mindsets of a communicator and an audience can create an unitended disconnect between them, making it harder for the communicator to be persuassive.

What Difference Does It Make?

The research suggests that tailoring a message to the mindset of an audience can increase its impact.

Since feelings of power, as opposed to actual social position, are often in flux, paying attention to the context around the message’s delivery might be crucial. An appeal that normally would be perfect for a given audience might fall flat if the audience’s feeling of power has been altered by societal or personal events, such as a CEO who was recently fired.

The research also suggests the importance of choosing the right person to craft the message—because powerful messengers might be inclined to frame an argument in a way that is suitable for powerful audiences, but not for low-power audiences.

“The relationship between audience and communicator power is dynamic,” Rucker says. “Our research stressed the importance of knowing both pieces of the puzzle.”

But Rucker is not ready to conclude that matching is always effective and mismatching always ineffective. It is a question he hopes to research more in the future.

“I’m a contextualist, so I’m very open-minded to the idea that mismatches might sometimes be beneficial,” he says. “Maybe there are cases where having a mismatch is good, for example, when a mismatch causes people to pay attention to information they would have otherwised ignored. I look forward to exploring this issue in greater depth.”

Sandy & Morton Goldman Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies in Marketing; Professor of Marketing; Co-chair of Faculty Research

About the Writer Theo Anderson is a writer and editor who lives in Chicago.

Dubois, David, Derek D. Rucker, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2016. “Dynamics of Communicator and Audience Power: The Persusiveness of Competence Versus Warmth.” Journal of Consumer Research.

Read the original

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

The Power Paradox

“It is much safer to be feared than loved,” writes Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince , his classic 16th-century treatise advocating manipulation and occasional cruelty as the best means to power. Almost 500 years later, Robert Greene’s national bestseller, The 48 Laws of Power , would have made Machiavelli’s chest swell with pride. Greene’s book, bedside reading of foreign policy analysts and hip-hop stars alike, is pure Machiavelli. Here are a few of his 48 laws:

Law 3, Conceal Your Intentions. Law 6, Court Attention at All Costs. Law 12, Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm Your Victims. Law 15, Crush Your Enemy Totally. Law 18, Keep Others in Suspended Terror.

You get the picture.

Guided by centuries of advice like Machiavelli’s and Greene’s, we tend to believe that attaining power requires force, deception, manipulation, and coercion. Indeed, we might even assume that positions of power demand this kind of conduct—that to run smoothly, society needs leaders who are willing and able to use power this way.

As seductive as these notions are, they are dead wrong. Instead, a new science of power has revealed that power is wielded most effectively when it’s used responsibly by people who are attuned to, and engaged with the needs and interests of others. Years of research suggests that empathy and social intelligence are vastly more important to acquiring and exercising power than are force, deception, or terror.

This research debunks longstanding myths about what constitutes true power, how people obtain it, and how they should use it. But studies also show that once people assume positions of power, they’re likely to act more selfishly, impulsively, and aggressively, and they have a harder time seeing the world from other people’s points of view. This presents us with the paradox of power: The skills most important to obtaining power and leading effectively are the very skills that deteriorate once we have power.

The power paradox requires that we be ever vigilant against the corruptive influences of power and its ability to distort the way we see ourselves and treat others. But this paradox also makes clear how important it is to challenge myths about power, which persuade us to choose the wrong kinds of leaders and to tolerate gross abuses of power. Instead of succumbing to the Machiavellian worldview—which unfortunately leads us to select Machiavellian leaders—we must promote a different model of power, one rooted in social intelligence, responsibility, and cooperation.

Myth number one: Power equals cash, votes, and muscle

The term “power” often evokes images of force and coercion. Many people assume that power is most evident on the floor of the United States Congress or in corporate boardrooms. Treatments of power in the social sciences have followed suit, zeroing in on clashes over cash (financial wealth), votes (participation in the political decision making process), and muscle (military might).

But there are innumerable exceptions to this definition of power: a penniless two year old pleading for (and getting) candy in the check-out line at the grocery store, one spouse manipulating another for sex, or the success of nonviolent political movements in places like India or South Africa. Viewing power as cash, votes, and muscle blinds us to the ways power pervades our daily lives.

New psychological research has redefined power, and this definition makes clear just how prevalent and integral power is in all of our lives. In psychological science, power is defined as one’s capacity to alter another person’s condition or state of mind by providing or withholding resources—such as food, money, knowledge, and affection—or administering punishments, such as physical harm, job termination, or social ostracism. This definition de-emphasizes how a person actually acts, and instead stresses the individual’s capacity to affect others. Perhaps most importantly, this definition applies across relationships, contexts, and cultures. It helps us understand how children can wield power over their parents from the time they’re born, or how someone—say, a religious leader—can be powerful in one context (on the pulpit during a Sunday sermon) but not another (on a mind numbingly slow line at the DMV come Monday morning). By this definition, one can be powerful without needing to try to control, coerce, or dominate. Indeed, when people resort to trying to control others, it’s often a sign that their power is slipping.

This definition complicates our understanding of power. Power is not something limited to power-hungry individuals or organizations; it is part of every social interaction where people have the capacity to influence one another’s states, which is really every moment of life. Claims that power is simply a product of male biology miss the degree to which women have obtained and wielded power in many social situations. In fact, studies I’ve conducted find that people grant power to women as readily as men, and in informal social hierarchies, women achieve similar levels of power as men.

So power is not something we should (or can) avoid, nor is it something that necessarily involves domination and submission. We are negotiating power every waking instant of our social lives (and in our dreams as well, Freud argued). When we seek equality, we are seeking an effective balance of power, not the absence of power. We use it to win consent and social cohesion, not just compliance. To be human is to be immersed in power dynamics.

Myth number two: Machiavellians win in the game of power

One of the central questions concerning power is who gets it. Researchers have confronted this question for years, and their results offer a sharp rebuke to the Machiavellian view of power. It is not the manipulative, strategic Machiavellian who rises in power. Instead, social science reveals that one’s ability to get or maintain power, even in small group situations, depends on one’s ability to understand and advance the goals of other group members. When it comes to power, social intelligence—reconciling conflicts, negotiating, smoothing over group tensions—prevails over social Darwinism.

For instance, highly detailed studies of “chimpanzee politics” have found that social power among nonhuman primates is based less on sheer strength, coercion, and the unbridled assertion of self-interest, and more on the ability to negotiate conflicts, to enforce group norms, and to allocate resources fairly. More often than not, this research shows, primates who try to wield their power by dominating others and prioritizing their own interests will find themselves challenged and, in time, deposed by subordinates. ( Christopher Boehm describes this research in greater length in his essay .)

In my own research on human social hierarchies, I have consistently found that it is the more dynamic, playful, engaging members of the group who quickly garner and maintain the respect of their peers. Such outgoing, energetic, socially engaged individuals quickly rise through the ranks of emerging hierarchies.

Why social intelligence? Because of our ultrasociability. We accomplish most tasks related to survival and reproduction socially, from caring for our children to producing food and shelter. We give power to those who can best serve the interests of the group.

Time and time again, empirical studies find that leaders who treat their subordinates with respect, share power, and generate a sense of camaraderie and trust are considered more just and fair.

Social intelligence is essential not only to rising to power, but to keeping it. My colleague Cameron Anderson and I have studied the structure of social hierarchies within college dormitories over the course of a year, examining who is at the top and remains there, who falls in status, and who is less well-respected by their peers. We’ve consistently found that it is the socially engaged individuals who keep their power over time. In more recent work, Cameron has made the remarkable discovery that modesty may be critical to maintaining power. Individuals who are modest about their own power actually rise in hierarchies and maintain the status and respect of their peers, while individuals with an inflated, grandiose sense of power quickly fall to the bottom rungs.

So what is the fate of Machiavellian group members, avid practitioners of Greene’s 48 laws, who are willing to deceive, backstab, intimidate, and undermine others in their pursuit of power? We’ve found that these individuals do not actually rise to positions of power. Instead, their peers quickly recognize that they will harm others in the pursuit of their own self-interest, and tag them with a reputation of being harmful to the group and not worthy of leadership.

Cooperation and modesty aren’t just ethical ways to use power, and they don’t only serve the interests of a group; they’re also valuable skills for people who seek positions of power and want to hold onto them.

Myth number three: Power is strategically acquired, not given

A major reason why Machiavellians fail is that they fall victim to a third myth about power. They mistakenly believe that power is acquired strategically in deceptive gamesmanship and by pitting others against one another. Here Machiavelli failed to appreciate an important fact in the evolution of human hierarchies: that with increasing social intelligence, subordinates can form powerful alliances and constrain the actions of those in power. Power increasingly has come to rest on the actions and judgments of other group members. A person’s power is only as strong as the status given to that person by others.

The sociologist Erving Goffman wrote with brilliant insight about deference—the manner in which we afford power to others with honorifics, formal prose, indirectness, and modest nonverbal displays of embarrassment. We can give power to others simply by being respectfully polite.

My own research has found that people instinctively identify individuals who might undermine the interests of the group, and prevent those people from rising in power, through what we call “reputational discourse.” In our research on different groups, we have asked group members to talk openly about other members’ reputations and to engage in gossip. We’ve found that Machiavellians quickly acquire reputations as individuals who act in ways that are inimical to the interests of others, and these reputations act like a glass ceiling, preventing their rise in power. In fact, this aspect of their behavior affected their reputations even more than their sexual morality, recreational habits, or their willingness to abide by group social conventions.

In The Prince, Machiavelli observes,

“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” He adds, “A prince ought, above all things, always to endeavor in every action to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man.” By contrast, several Eastern traditions, such as Taoism and Confucianism , exalt the modest leader, one who engages with the followers and practices social intelligence. In the words of the Taoist philosopher Lao-tzu , “To lead the people, walk behind them.” Compare this advice to Machiavelli’s, and judge them both against years of scientific research. Science gives the nod to Lao-tzu.

The power paradox

“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said the British historian Lord Acton . Unfortunately, this is not entirely a myth, as the actions of Europe’s monarchs, Enron’s executives, and out-of- control pop stars reveal. A great deal of research—especially from social psychology—lends support to Acton’s claim, albeit with a twist: Power leads people to act in impulsive fashion, both good and bad, and to fail to understand other people’s feelings and desires.

For instance, studies have found that people given power in experiments are more likely to rely on stereotypes when judging others, and they pay less attention to the characteristics that define those other people as individuals. Predisposed to stereotype, they also judge others’ attitudes, interests, and needs less accurately. One survey found that high-power professors made less accurate judgments about the attitudes of low-power professors than those low-power professors made about the attitudes of their more powerful colleagues. Power imbalances may even help explain the finding that older siblings don’t perform as well as their younger siblings on theory-of-mind tasks, which assess one’s ability to construe the intentions and beliefs of others.

Power even prompts less complex legal reasoning in Supreme Court justices. A study led by Stanford psychologist Deborah Gruenfeld compared the decisions of U.S. Supreme Court justices when they wrote opinions endorsing either the position of a majority of justices on the bench—a position of power—or the position of the vanquished, less powerful minority. Sure enough, when Gruenfeld analyzed the complexity of justices’ opinions on a vast array of cases, she found that justices writing from a position of power crafted less complex arguments than those writing from a low-power position.

A great deal of research has also found that power encourages individuals to act on their own whims, desires, and impulses. When researchers give people power in scientific experiments, those people are more likely to physically touch others in potentially inappropriate ways, to flirt in more direct fashion, to make risky choices and gambles, to make first offers in negotiations, to speak their mind, and to eat cookies like the Cookie Monster, with crumbs all over their chins and chests.

Perhaps more unsettling is the wealth of evidence that having power makes people more likely to act like sociopaths. High-power individuals are more likely to interrupt others, to speak out of turn, and to fail to look at others who are speaking. They are also more likely to tease friends and colleagues in hostile, humiliating fashion. Surveys of organizations find that most rude behaviors—shouting, profanities, bald critiques—emanate from the offices and cubicles of individuals in positions of power.

My own research has found that people with power tend to behave like patients who have damaged their brain’s orbitofrontal lobes (the region of the frontal lobes right behind the eye sockets), a condition that seems to cause overly impulsive and insensitive behavior. Thus the experience of power might be thought of as having someone open up your skull and take out that part of your brain so critical to empathy and socially-appropriate behavior.

Power may induce more harmful forms of aggression as well. In the famed Stanford Prison Experiment , psychologist Philip Zimbardo randomly assigned Stanford undergraduates to act as prison guards or prisoners—an extreme kind of power relation. The prison guards quickly descended into the purest forms of power abuse, psychologically torturing their peers, the prisoners. Similarly, anthropologists have found that cultures where rape is prevalent and accepted tend to be cultures with deeply entrenched beliefs in the supremacy of men over women.

This leaves us with a power paradox. Power is given to those individuals, groups, or nations who advance the interests of the greater good in socially-intelligent fashion.

Yet unfortunately, having power renders many individuals as impulsive and poorly attuned to others as your garden-variety frontal lobe patient, making them prone to act abusively and lose the esteem of their peers. What people want from leaders—social intelligence—is what is damaged by the experience of power.

When we recognize this paradox and all the destructive behaviors that flow from it, we can appreciate the importance of promoting a more socially-intelligent model of power. Social behaviors are dictated by social expectations. As we debunk long-standing myths and misconceptions about power, we can better identify the qualities powerful people should have, and better understand how they should wield their power. As a result, we’ll have much less tolerance for people who lead by deception, coercion, or undue force. No longer will we expect these kinds of antisocial behaviors from our leaders and silently accept them when they come to pass.

We’ll also start to demand something more from our colleagues, our neighbors, and ourselves. When we appreciate the distinctions between responsible and irresponsible uses of power—and the importance of practicing the responsible, socially-intelligent form of it—we take a vital step toward promoting healthy marriages, peaceful playgrounds, and societies built on cooperation and trust.

About the Author

Dacher Keltner

Uc berkeley.

Dacher Keltner, Ph.D. , is the founding director of the Greater Good Science Center and a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence and Born to Be Good , and a co-editor of The Compassionate Instinct .

You May Also Enjoy

Little Dictator

Burdens of power, the psychology of power.

Power Sickness

Outstanding! I found this article thanks to Bob Sutton posting it on Twitter, and I’m glad I did.  I would offer that even the “new” definition of power, “one’s capacity to alter another’s condition… by providing or withholding resources” still conflates power and force.  I would offer that, particularly in the social interactions, power is indeed one’s ability to alter another’s condition, but it arises (as much of the article goes on to argue) almost entirely as the gift of the other. 

The reason why bosses in particular go bad, in my opinion, is that they mistake the force that their position grants them as power granted them by their subordinates.  Disaster follows, typically first for the subordinates.

Many thanks for this excellent article.

Jonathan Magid | 3:11 pm, September 18, 2010 | Link

Great, i am happy to know about this article, thanks to Dan Rockwell who post it on twitter.

Let me articulate the issue this way, I think Machiavellian leaders use the same definition of power you stated here, however the difference lies in the socially intelligent, respectful, high self esteem subordinates who will rank those leaders low once they discover their Machiavellian intentions, but by maintaining ignorant, low self esteem, irresponsible group of followers the Machiavellian leader maintains his/her position.

In the new organizations where leaders are chosen and expected to lead intelligent group, the Machiavellian leaders will not hold on long, the group power will change their position for the greater good of the ones who assigned them.

Perhapse, this is the reason why Machiavellian leaders survived, the solution lies in educating ourselves as you said not to accept them, not to tolerate their potential harm to the group.

Thanks a lot Dacher for the great article, Huda

Huda | 1:07 am, September 19, 2010 | Link

Brilliant insights Dacher.  I’ve consistently found that power and leadership are best wielded by people who are self-aware and understand how to help others grow and succeed.  When we let go of our need to appear a certain way or dominate others we can then focus on helping others shine.  We then gain more respect and actual power (over ourselves and in collaboration with others).  As you’ve so ably noted, the less we seek power the more we receive.

Guy Farmer | 2:28 pm, September 19, 2010 | Link

Great article! Thanks for the mindful insights.

Paul Rudolf Seebacher | 1:40 pm, October 5, 2010 | Link

I was wondered! You open my eyes. But is your article mean that power branch “searches” people who was damaged by the experience of power?  Thank you Andrey Irkutsk (East Siberia)

Andrey | 8:51 am, October 19, 2010 | Link

Brilliantly put. Many of us waste our resources in the early stages of our career, forgetful that the race is won by the staying power of the runners! And succeed with staying power ones is required to have mastered socially-intelligent, humility and passion. Indeed what we you about the pursuit of power, particularly if you are thinking about power at the dictatorial level or becoming a leader, is that you have to have a clear, relentless focus, and you have got to stay focused and attending on your target for quite a long period of time.  Yet much of the old research indicates that there is a very profound gender difference in the ability to maintain focus and concentration, to the extent that one gender clearly is unable to maintain focus and attention at the requisite level, which has led to some psychologists to say that one gender – perhaps should not be doing certain professions which require concentration and focus – a line of though which is very controversial idea indeed in society today! So Dr. Dacher, by inserting social intelligence at centre of power-play she has armed those seeking leadership with a perfect arsenal on how to best wield power in a manner that is more humane –helping other to grow and help themselves to succeed!

thanks for the article…..........

S. Luwemba Kawumi | 6:32 am, November 30, 2010 | Link

Not being armed with the data from the various studies, I found two glaring problems:   1- While I find the empathy argument interesting and likely true (plus strangely intuitive, which the author says it isn’t), this seems to have a scale component the author doesn’t acknowledge.  The kind of empathy derived power acquisition only seems to work in the small scale.  Go to a much larger scale, say nationally, then the Machiavellian model seems more operational.  Take the Republican party;  they get and keep power by getting people to vote against their own interests by all kinds of Machiavellian manipulations.  Personally, I maintain this is the only way for them to hold power given their specific public policy advocacy.  They have gotten the masses to abandon rationality, really brilliant, actually.

2- The author doesn’t mention how those in power can keep it in an information vacuum.  I think of the City Council in my town of Emeryville and the lack of a newspaper here.  The entrenched council majority seems to use both Machiavellian techniques and the more empathy centered ones in their day to day expression of power.  This is how they depose challengers I’ve found but come election time, it’s the general population’s lack of information that works to their advantage.

Brian Donahue | 8:40 am, January 27, 2011 | Link

thanks for this great informative post i appreciate it.

xenki | 4:59 pm, February 21, 2011 | Link

The Stanford study has interesting implications about power abuse. It is no surprise when there is such a divergent power base as in this study between guards and inmates acted out by students how quickly the power paradox is acted out. Great article look forward to reading more in the future.

Carl | 8:17 pm, February 22, 2011 | Link

Upon a second reading, I think the author’s conceits suffer from a need to posit a new angle on this age old problem (hence it’s too academic).  It seems to fill a need in the reader to see a greater justice; one levied by an invisible force, at play.

Brian Donahue | 11:08 pm, February 22, 2011 | Link

Ask the chinese people if lao tzu and confucianism proved to be more effective than a strong armed government body.  Consider “the Ocean people” and all of their exploitation of the modest philosophy of the chinese rulers during the colonial periods.  No, China is becoming a force on this planet again and I daresay it’s partly because they’ve pushed aside their confucian roots and become more machiavellian. Other than that small issue, great article.  Really makes you think.

steve | 12:31 pm, December 18, 2011 | Link

The myths the author debunks and the alternatives he proposes may be the ideal, but in reality, power has largely been seized and maintained by the 5 laws listed at the beginning of the article. Even in the USA, the most powerful democratic country in the world, one may identify from the public record where presidents have used some or all of the “laws” at some point.

John Wong | 12:42 pm, July 12, 2012 | Link

My daughter was looking for some useful article for her school project. I referrred yourblog to her. She found it very useful.

Design Inspiration | 9:35 am, December 14, 2012 | Link

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews
• Research question
• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework
• Data collection
• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research
• Case studies
• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Introduction

What is the meaning of power dynamics?

What are some examples of power dynamics, power and hierarchies in research situations, accounting for power in the research process.

• Reflexivity

Power dynamics in research

Social science research examines the use of and interplay between language, behavior, and beliefs. All three of these things are informed by power relations. As a result, social science research that looks at these three things without comprehensively accounting for the relationships between and hierarchies of people cannot fully capture the essence of social interaction and cultural practices. Power is an essential component of the qualitative research process when collecting data with and from research participants.

Power dynamics refer to the inherent structures and influences of power that exist between individuals and groups within a given context. This idea extends beyond mere authority or control, delving into more nuanced territories of influence, dominance, privilege, and communication styles. In its simplest form, power can be understood as the ability to influence or control outcomes. The possession of power can come from a variety of sources - from formal structures like hierarchies and job titles to less tangible aspects like knowledge, charisma, and social capital. Understanding the different types of power - such as legitimate, reward, coercive, expert, and referent power - helps us see how these dynamics might play out in various scenarios.

Understanding power dynamics

Power dynamics are the interactions that occur within these power structures, reflecting how power is negotiated, contested, and exercised. Power is rarely static. It flows, shifts, and morphs depending on the context, individuals involved, and their relationships, among other factors. For example, a CEO may have clear power in a business setting but may have different dynamics in a family or community setting. A teacher has power in a classroom but may find themselves without it in a school board meeting. In social science research, notions of power are often multifaceted and deeply embedded in the interactions between both the researchers and their participants. This reality has consequential implications for data collection, particularly when the research project involves interviews and observations. After all, how research participants perceive their status and power relative to researchers among them will change the way they interact and behave.

What causes power dynamics?

Power arises from an amalgamation of factors, both individual and systemic. They are not accidental or arbitrary but have roots in societal structures, personal characteristics, and relationship history. Social structures such as class, gender, race, and age are significant contributors to power dynamics. These structures can confer or withhold power, affecting an individual's capacity to make choices and influence outcomes. For instance, someone in a higher socioeconomic class may have more power than someone from a lower class due to financial resources and social networks. Personal characteristics such as knowledge, skills, charisma, confidence, and emotional intelligence can influence how power is perceived and negotiated. For example, an individual with expert knowledge in a particular field may have more power in relevant contexts. The history and nature of relationships between individuals or groups can also shape power relations. Relationships with longstanding patterns of dominance and submission, for instance, can foster uneven power structures.

Analyze power, sentiments, and more with ATLAS.ti

Insightful findings from your data are just a click away. Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti.

Power, as an omnipresent force, permeates every corner of our social, professional, and personal lives. It has an undeniable influence, shaping interactions, relationships, and outcomes across diverse contexts. Its broad scope and wide reach make it a fundamental component in how we navigate the world around us. It operates at various levels, from familial relationships to societal structures, dictating behavioral expectations and shaping societal hierarchies. For instance, elders in a family or community may possess authority, influencing decisions and setting cultural norms. In professional contexts, power structures become evident through hierarchies and dynamics between employees and managers, colleagues, and even competitors. It influences decision-making, resource allocation, and strategic direction. An employee with unique skills or knowledge may, for example, wield considerable influence within a team or project. In interpersonal relationships, power dynamics can manifest in myriad ways, from decision-making processes to communication patterns. These dynamics can be influenced by factors such as personality traits, emotional intelligence, or past experiences.

These examples illustrate the pervasive presence of power, underscoring its integral role in different aspects of life. It's an entity that, although invisible, holds a tangible impact on the course of our interactions and relationships. Here are some examples in depth that illustrate the presence of power in different contexts.

Power dynamics in the workplace

The workplace, a primary setting for qualitative research, is a rich tapestry of power dynamics. Traditionally, power structures are delineated quite clearly in professional environments, making the flow of authority visible and often predictable. Managers and leaders, for instance, hold particular power because of their ability to make key decisions, allocate resources, establish strategic direction, and control the flow of information. Yet, the dynamics of power in the workplace are not exclusively dictated by official hierarchies or job titles. More subtle but no less impactful forms of power are also at play. Employees with unique skills or specialized knowledge may command a level of respect and influence that transcends their formal position. Their expertise becomes a form of power that can shape decisions and strategies within the organization.

In addition, personal traits such as charisma, emotional intelligence, or effective communication skills can also alter the power landscape, as they can foster influence and leadership outside of formal hierarchies. Furthermore, power can also stem from social relationships and networking within the organization. Employees who are well-connected and have built strong relationships across departments may have access to valuable information and support, thereby exerting a unique form of power. Hence, the workplace provides an intriguing context for exploring power dynamics, with influences ranging from clear-cut hierarchies to nuanced interpersonal factors.

Power in educational settings

Educational settings are another context teeming with power dynamics, making them fertile ground for qualitative research. Traditionally, the most visible form of power is held by teachers or professors. Their authority stems from their role to define course agendas, grade assignments, maintain discipline, and steer the classroom environment. They shape the learning journey and set the standards that students are expected to meet. However, the dynamics of power in educational settings are not one-dimensional. Indeed, they can shift and evolve depending on various factors. For instance, students who excel academically or athletically often gain a certain level of influence. Their achievements can elevate their status among their peers, allowing them to sway group dynamics, affect peer relationships, and even influence classroom culture.

In some cases, high-performing students might indirectly influence teaching approaches as well. Teachers might adjust their methods or pacing to accommodate these students' capabilities, inadvertently shifting some power into the students' hands. Additionally, the power dynamics in education are not isolated within the confines of the classroom. They extend to interactions with parents, administrators, and other staff. For example, administrators hold the power to set policies and guidelines that teachers and students must follow, while parental involvement can influence classroom dynamics and educational priorities. This complexity underscores the multiplicity of power dynamics at play in educational settings, which extend far beyond the basic teacher-student relationship. These dynamics can significantly shape the educational experience, making them a crucial aspect to consider in research pertaining to education.

Power in social and cultural contexts

Power dynamics in social and cultural contexts are fascinating to study because they offer a mirror into broader social hierarchies, norms, and values. These dynamics are deeply ingrained, often unspoken, permeating every layer of social interaction. Power can be dictated by a host of factors, including but not limited to gender, race, socioeconomic status, age, and even geographical location. For instance, in many societies, power differentials exist along the lines of gender, with patriarchal or matriarchal structures influencing family roles, professional opportunities, and societal expectations. Similarly, race and ethnicity can shape power dynamics, with majority groups often wielding more social, economic, and political power than minority groups. Socioeconomic status is another significant driver of power dynamics. Wealth and education often confer a certain level of power and privilege, affecting access to resources, opportunities, and even shaping individuals' social networks. These dynamics can manifest in social mobility, wealth distribution, and educational opportunities. Age, too, can be a determinant of power. In many traditional societies, for instance, older members are often conferred significant power. Their age is seen as synonymous with wisdom and experience, leading them to be revered and consulted on important matters. However, this dynamic can vary greatly across different cultures, with some societies valuing youth and innovation. Moreover, power dynamics in social and cultural contexts are not static but evolve over time as societal norms and values change. These shifts can be driven by various factors, such as technological advancements, social movements, or changes in legislation. Therefore, understanding power dynamics in social and cultural contexts requires a comprehensive, nuanced view that considers various intersecting factors. Such understanding is vital to conducting qualitative research sensitive to the complexity of social interactions and structures.

Power in qualitative research

In research contexts, particularly in qualitative research , power dynamics are paramount. The researcher or their research team holds a certain level of power through their role, the design of the study, the questions they ask, and how they interpret and present the data. Conversely, participants also have power, as their experiences and perspectives shape the data collected. This interplay between academic researchers and their participants can significantly influence the research process and findings.

In the arena of research, especially in qualitative research , understanding and navigating power dynamics are crucial. The inherent hierarchies between researchers and participants can shape the data collection process, influence the interpretations of the findings , and ultimately affect the integrity of the research.

Traditionally, a certain level of power is assigned to researchers due to their position, the design of the study, and their interpretive authority. Researchers initiate the research process, develop the questions, and determine the method of analysis, which allows them to control the narrative to some extent. However, this power dynamic isn't one-sided. Research participants also exert power. They control their own narratives, their willingness to share, the depth of the details they divulge, and their interpretation of their experiences. This power can even extend to influencing how comfortable the researcher feels in the interview situation. Thus, research is a dynamic process where power is constantly negotiated and renegotiated between researchers and participants.

Moreover, hierarchies within the research process are not limited to the researcher-participant relationship. They extend to the larger system of academic research. For instance, the institutional affiliations, academic reputation, and societal status of a researcher can influence the access they gain to research sites and participants. Similarly, funders and sponsors of research can wield power by influencing research agendas and publication practices. Furthermore, power and hierarchies in research situations are also shaped by broader societal structures and dynamics. A researcher's and participant's identities, such as their gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, can influence their interactions and the research process itself.

These dynamics can affect research in various ways. They can impact participants' willingness to share certain information, influence the researcher's interpretation of data, or even determine whose voices are heard and whose are overlooked. For example, a participant may be hesitant to fully disclose personal experiences if they perceive a significant power differential between themselves and the researcher. On the other hand, a researcher might unconsciously give more weight to the views of participants they perceive as more similar to themselves. Given these complexities, it is essential for researchers to be aware of and critically reflective about the power dynamics and hierarchies inherent in their research. This mindfulness not only aids in conducting ethical and respectful research but also contributes to producing richer, more nuanced, and more valid findings.

Power relationships cannot and should not be ignored for the sake of achieving an artificial form of research rigor . Many segments of qualitative research , especially those relating to social psychology, mental health research, and political injustice, lack any real insight without sufficient consideration of power. The concept of patient embarrassment, for example, deals with the phenomenon where health outcomes are ultimately affected by the patient's inability to convey information within the health system because problems might seem too minor or embarrassing. Development studies examine issues of poverty, community engagement, and competing interests at local and global levels of power. Research in sociology examines different classes of people interacting with and against each other based on relative differences in power.

In many respects, power itself is the object of research inquiry. Many strands of sociolinguistics theory are founded on the notion that language, interaction, and social relations cannot be devoid of power. Community-based participatory research , for example, looks at engaging participants in a given context for the purpose of crafting solutions to issues facing that community. Most often, this involves either working with people in power or challenging them altogether to determine how community members can make progress within their own context.

Put the key elements of your research to work with ATLAS.ti

Analyze your qualitative data with a free trial of ATLAS.ti today.

• Show simple item record
• Show full item record
• Export item record

Files in This Item:

Page view(s) 5, download(s) 10.

Google Scholar TM

Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Power

Power Dynamic Essays Examples

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Power , Nursing , Health , Development , Nurses , Breastfeeding , Care , Dynamics

Words: 2750

Published: 03/30/2023

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Introduction

The changes occurring in the health sector has been one of the main concerns of health professionals and researchers. Due to the changes of the demographics and health status of patients along with the current technological advances, it has been assumed that the old strategies used could no longer suffice for the current global health concerns. Thus, it is necessary to consider revisions and improvements when it comes to the advancements of medical technology along with the other issues related to the implementation of certain interventions and promotion of the fundamental goals of health development (United Nations Development Program, 2006). One of the factors that greatly contribute to the hierarchy and structure in the field of health policy is power dynamics. Power has been defined as the degree of control given to particular sections and representatives of the society over particular resources such as material, human, financial, and even intellectual resources. Different sectors in the society achieve a certain source of power in the individually or socially by having control of the abovementioned resources (VeneKlasen & Miller, 2006; Pettit, 2012). Currently, the concept of power is not considered as absolute but dynamic and relational. It is usually associated in the social, economic, and even political relations apparent between individuals and organizations in the society. In the field of health care and health policy, one of the main concerns when it comes to power dynamic is the unequal distribution of power among some individuals and groups. It has been acknowledged that the degree of power given to an individual or a particular group is dependent on the different types of resources they can control and handle (VeneKlasen & Miller, 2006; Pettit, 2012). An individual possesses power by engaging in a dynamic relationship with other individuals and stakeholders; however, the degree of power an individual possesses mainly depends on the individual’s nature of relationship which tends to be associated with the characteristics of the individual and the situations or positions where they are assigned. Thus, despite the numerous types of power, there are only two basic types to be considered namely personal power and position power. Personal power is dependent on the characteristics of an individual such as respect, skills and expertise, and general likability. On the other hand, position power is dependent on the position or job status of an individual within a society or an organization. Position power is bounded by the rules and regulations of the society or of the organization (Akioyamen, 2014). In the field of health care, nurses are considered to be stakeholders in the development and implementation of health policy because they work alongside with other teams or groups. Thus, it is necessary for the stakeholders to be aware of their power to be able to use this in the development and implementation of new interventions and strategies that can aid in the current problems of the society. Additionally, they should also be able to take note of the power dynamics in their institutions to empower and encourage them when it comes to the various decision-making processes. In the relationship between nurses and patients, it can be claimed that nurses have more power than the patients because of the former’s access and knowledge of the healthcare system and privileged information. However, this power dynamic is not apparent because nurses tend to be reluctant to acknowledge and exert this power. In line with this, this paper aims to critically appraise the power dynamic that exists during interprofessional collaborations especially when developing interventions or projects associated with vaccinations among selected populations. Additionally, it also aims to demonstrate the application of legitimate and illegitimate power which affects the outcomes of the health policy (McDonald, Jayasuriya, & Harris, 2012).

Description of the Power Dynamic

The dynamics in power is mainly apparent during collaborations among different health professionals. Most of the time, nurses collaborate with physicians, researchers, educators, and medical specialists to be able to compile information and devise a plan that can improve the current status of health care in their respective institutions. These collaborations tend to result to conflicts and disagreements because of the overlapping of different roles and the boundaries of respective roles. The absence of the shared decision-making process is also a concern because it leads to inefficiency when it comes to the development and implementation of various health interventions and strategies. Conflicts and disagreements during interprofessional collaboration suggest a presence of power and authority issues within the organization. During interprofessional collaborations, other professionals tend to initiate conversations more because they have higher positions and power than other professionals. The presence of this type of power dynamics in the health sector limits the participation and contributions of other health professionals especially in terms of the brain storming process (McDonald, Jayasuriya, & Harris, 2012). According to the study of Ponte, et al. (2007) entitled “The Power of Professional Nursing Practice- An Essential Element of Patient and Family Centered Care”, nurses tend to view their power according to personal experiences and experiences of other colleagues. Additionally, it was revealed that majority of the nurses believed that their power is dependent on one’s own knowledge, expertise, and skill set in terms of the different important aspects in the nursing practice such as technical, analytical, and interpersonal aspects. Among these, it has been observed that the expertise and skillset of nurses tend to be directed solely on the patients and the relatives of the person they are attending to. These findings support the claim that the collective power of nurses tend to be dependent of the various actions, behaviors, and personality of nurses as an individual (Komatsu &Yagasaki, 2014; Peltomaa, et al, 2012). Power acquired by different individuals can either be legitimate or illegitimate. The legitimacy of power is necessary to obtain the trust and cooperation of workmates and subordinates. It has been revealed that legitimacy can provide the “cushion of support for authority” due to the fact that having a legitimate power means that the powerful individual has been conventionally accepted by subordinates. Various studies revealed that the appraisals in legitimacy of power is fundamental when it comes to the acceptance or rejection of the existing power differences among individuals and groups. Additionally, these appraisals are considered to be determining factors of the differences in power when it comes to an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and even actions. On the other hand, illegitimate power is a source of difference in power which can have a negative impact in the working relationships between the person involved and other workmates. According to the studies and theories in justice, workmates or subordinates will experience anger when faced with a perceived unfair or unjust treatment (Hennes, Ruisch, Feygina, Monteiro, & Jost, 2016). Despite these theories that reveal the rejection of power without adequate explanation, there are currently two lines of research which are actively proposing the tendency of individuals to accept pseudo-explanations or illegitimate explanations for differences in power. One of these researches is the study conducted by Langer, et al. (1978) which revealed that uninformative, placebic explanations and reasons are already enough for obtaining compliance among workmates and subordinates. The results of the study revealed that individuals are motivated to work and cooperate with the person in power provided that the reasons for the power was legitimate and rational. Additionally, the perspective of system justification also hypothesized that individuals have the tendency to actively engage in the legitimation of the social reality up to the point of justifying personal positions of power or powerlessness. Thus, it has was concluded that individuals use cognitive and memory functions to look beyond the facts and information provided in determining the legitimacy of the power (Hennes, Ruisch, Feygina, Monteiro, & Jost, 2016). The power dynamics that exist during interprofessional collaborations can impact the health policy outcome in terms of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the power. When developing new interventions associated with the improvement of vaccination rates among a selected population, interprofessional collaboration is necessary because there are several tasks that can be designated to different professionals. For example, the provision of detailed facts and information about the current statistics of vaccination rates can be done by nurses and health researchers. On the other hand, the development of interventions and strategies can be led by public health professionals and advisers. Physicians and other administrative staff can also provide guidance when it comes to gathering different professionals and initiating group discussions during decision-making processes. As mentioned earlier, conflicts and miscommunications may occur because of the power dynamics that exist within the group. When the power of the health professionals who lead the group discussions is legitimate, other health professionals will have trust and confidence on the ability of the leader to lead the group. Additionally, this trust allows other health professionals to share their insights regarding the interventions and suggestions on the innovations that aim to improve the health status of individuals. On the contrary, the presence of illegitimate power within the group can lead to mistrust and judgments which can eventually act as a barrier towards the improvements in the health policy analysis and decision-making process of the implementations of various interventions and strategies (McDonald, Jayasuriya, & Harris, 2012).

Reflection on the Power Dynamic

Changes in the macro, meso, and micro system levels of healthcare can be dependent on the different driving and restraining forces. Driving forces are defined as elements and factors that are responsible for the promotion or progress of changes in the system. On the other hand, restraining or static forces are elements or factors that negate the progress or promotion towards change. Restraining or static forces simply act as opposing elements of change (Sutherland, 2013). According to the study conducted by Suhonen, Välimäki, and Leino-Kilpi (2009) entitled “The driving and restraining forces that promote and impede the implementation of individualized nursing care: a literature review”, the main categories that can describe and identify the restraining and driving forces of change include: (1) personal characteristics of nurses; (2) enhancement of skills; (3) ethical issue; (4) delivery and interventions related to nursing care; (5) characteristics of patients; (6) organization and structure at work; (7) staffing; (8) group dynamics and teamwork; and (9) leadership and management styles (Suhonen, Välimäki, & Leino-Kilpi, 2009). The above-mentioned categories can act as a driving or restraining force. For example, the characteristics of nurses can either promote or negate the advances towards change in terms of health policy. If a nurse is optimistic, critical, and cooperative during the process of policy analysis and brainstorming, progress and promotion can be attained because nurses with these characteristics actively participate in group discussion to encourage accurate and efficient inputs on the status of patient care. On the contrary, when a nurse is unenthusiastic, uncooperative, and passive, progress and change on the micro, meso, and macro levels are unattainable because there is stakeholder who is not actively participating in group discussions. This can lead to inaccuracies when it comes to diagnosing the main problems of the different health strategies and interventions (Suhonen, Välimäki, & Leino-Kilpi, 2009). The next categories (skills enhancement and ethical issue) act as a driving force (the former) and restraining force (the latter). Skills enhancement act as a driving force that impact the power of nursing because obtaining additional trainings and other skill enhancement programs can provide nurses with legitimate power. Enhancement of skills can encourage nurses to actively participate in policy analysis in the micro, meso, and even macro levels because they are competent and are back up by their training and skills records. It has been acknowledged that the participation of nurses in these events is considered to be advantageous because of the knowledge and experience of nurses when it comes to patient care. On the other hand, the ethical issues can act as restraining force when it comes to the changes in the health care sector. Ethical issues limit the scope of changes and improvements that health professionals can tackle. It is important to consider these ethical issues to ensure that the benefits always outweigh the risks involved in certain advancements (Suhonen, Välimäki, & Leino-Kilpi, 2009). The other categories mentioned above can act as both driving and restraining force. These categories can act as driving forces that can impact the power of nursing when there are sufficient and appropriate health interventions and strategies, when the characteristics of the patients are receptive and positive, when there is an organized structure at work, when the staffing at the institution is sufficient, when there is a coordinated dynamics and teamwork at work, and when the leadership and management styles promote and encourage collaboration among health professionals. However, the opposite of these categories can act as restraining forces because they would serve as barriers in improving the power of nursing and in promoting changes in the health policies and interventions of institutions in the micro, meso, and macro system levels of health care (Suhonen, Välimäki, & Leino-Kilpi, 2009). During interprofessional collaborations for the development of innovations and strategies, the characteristics of the professionals as well as the availability of the resources are considered to be important factors that can either act as driving or restraining forces. In the micro and meso levels of health care, it is easier for nurses to interact and reach out to patients to help improve the vaccination rates within the particular population. However, it is harder for improvements to take place at the macro system of health care because a bigger number of health professionals are needed to collaborate to attain improvement in vaccination rates in the macro level. Thus, it is important to properly address the power dynamics that exist among the professionals to establish a positive working atmosphere and an organized structure that allows open discussions and brain-storming processes (Suhonen, Välimäki, & Leino-Kilpi, 2009).

Power dynamic is a term that can be applied in the different sectors of governments and health institutions. Thus, it is necessary to consider that different problems and benefits that can arise from the power dynamics present at a particular institution. In the field of health care, it is important to consider the legitimacy of power to ensure that professionals are capable of initiating and sustaining improvements and changes in the health policies and strategies associated with patient care. In totality, it is important to consider the different restraining and driving forces that can impact the power of health professionals to point out possible areas of improvement. Additionally, possible problems may be prevented by taking note of the categories that may negate or promote changes in power dynamics and health policies (VeneKlasen & Miller, 2006; Pettit, 2012).

Akioyamen, L.E. (2014). Power in Individuals Groups, and the Nursing Profession: An Exposition. International Journal of Nursing Student Scholarship 1: Article 1. Hennes, E.P., Ruisch, B.C., Feygina, I., Monteiro, C.A., and Jost, J.T. (2016). Motivated Recall in the Service of the Economic System: The Case of Anthropogenic Climate Change. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 145(6):755-771. Komatsu, H. and Yagasaki, K. (2014). The Power of nursing: Guiding patients through a journey of uncertainty. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 18(4): 419-424. Langer, E., Blank, A., and Chanowitz, B. (1978). The Mindlessness of Ostensibly Thoughtful Action: The Role of “Placebic” Information in Interpersonal Interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36(6): 635-542. McDonald, J., Jayasuriya, R., Harris, M.K. (2012). The influence of power dynamics and trust on multidisciplinary collaboration: a qualitative case study of type 2 diabetes mellitus. BMC Health Services Research 12(63). Peltomaa, K., Viinikainen, S., Rantanen, A., Sieloff, C., Asikainen, P., and Suominen, T. (2012). Nursing power as viewed by nursing professionals. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 27(3): 580-588. Pettit, J. (2012). Empowerment and Participation: bridging the gap between understanding and practice. New York, NY: United Nations Headquarters. Ponte, P.R., Glazer, G., Dann, E., McCollum, K., Gross, A., Tyrell, R., Branowicki, P., Noga, P., Winfrey, M., Cooley, M., Saint-Eloi, S., Hayes, C., Nicolas, P.K., and Washington, D. (2007). The Power of Professional Nursing Practice—An Essential Element of Patient and Family Centered Care. The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing 12(1). Suhonen, R., Välimäki, M., and Leino-Kilpi, H. (2009). The driving and restraining forces that promote and impede the implementation of individualized nursing care: a literature review. International Journal of Nursing Studies 46(12): 1637-1649. Sutherland, K. (2013). Applying Lewin’s Change Management Theory to the Implementation of Bar-Coded Medication Administration. Canadian Journal of Nursing Informatics 8(1). United Nations Development Program. (2006). UN Millennium Project. Retrieved from http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/maternalchild-chapters1-2.pdf [Accessed on 25 Jul 2016] VeneKlasen, L. and Miller, V. (2006). Dynamics of Power, Inclusion, and Exclusion. Nonprofit Online News Journal: 38-56.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1429

This paper is created by writer with

ID 271579796

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Good order 310815 essay example, free jetblue case study example, errol morris documentary on rick rosner one in a million trillion essays example, malcom x research paper example, free art and architecture essay sample, good essay on eve egoyan bio, free politics and history of latin america essay sample, good migrant mother the screech for help essay example, accounting essay example, crohns disease research paper, free course work on queer theory, government regulation over the internet argumentative essay examples, course work on holy spirit, repression research papers examples, free jerusalem and mecca research paper sample, example of starbucks corporation essay, example of research methods essay 2, what are the effects of using social media research proposal examples, martin luther essay samples, free gender essay example, good governing cross sector collaboration essay example, economic development article review samples, why do we need morality essay, essay on copper and copper alloys, example of essay on the year is 2040, curbs essays, coloni essays, beboppers essays, cognisant essays, cognizing essays, dashing essays, arthurian essays, checksums essays, blurrier essays, exogamy essays, endogamy essays, shutting essays, moniz essays, boston marathon essays, boylston essays, boca raton essays, computer network essays, club drug essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

UC Berkeley

Essays on Power Dynamics in Chinese Innovation Policy

• Rogers, Philip
• Advisor(s): Vogel, Steven K. ;
• O'Brien, Kevin J.

China watchers find it helpful to speak in terms of eras: the Mao era, the Open and Reform era, and now the Xi era. The two foundational themes in this story arc have been the use of autocratic power structures and the degree of integration into the global economy. Developments in the last decade have increasingly melded the more personalist, ideological, and centralized politics of Mao Zedong with the regulatory architecture his successors put in place for markets and internationalization. In this regard, a key dynamic—and a key tension—of the last four decades remains as fascinating as ever: What happens when institutions adopted from more liberal contexts are grafted onto an authoritarian power structure?

The following essays illustrate how this power dynamic plays out in three regulatory areas central to innovation policy: finance, antitrust, and intellectual property. These areas are not only major foci for Chinese policymakers in their prominently articulated goals of indigenous innovation and global technological leadership for the next stage of Chinese development; they are also key institutional frameworks for organizing and facilitating markets.

The first essay focuses on the arrangement that over 80 Chinese companies— often from the scrupulously regulated and highly sensitive tech sector—use to attract foreign capital. In so doing, it grapples with the empirical puzzle of widespread permittance of the circumvention of China’s FDI regime. Drawing on case studies and descriptive statistics, it probes the advantages of allowing firms to operate within the meso-layer between permissibility and proscription. The essay concludes that the understated application of state power has enabled the temporal flexibility necessary to meet evolving state goals. Post-Covid politics render this modulating power dynamic as salient as ever.

The second essay asserts that the regulatory scrutiny Chinese internet platforms have received illustrates that antitrust can function as both a limitation of firms’ social power and a delegation of economic responsibility. This perspective comes from transporting the Brandeisian emphasis on antitrust as a tool for limiting power in democracies to an autocratic context in which various articulations of the Dictator’s Dilemma for maintaining regime power are the most common theoretical starting point. After linking this exercise in conceptual travel to well-established Chinese governance motifs, a close reading of primary sources around the antitrust crackdown on internet platforms in late 2020 and early 2021 provides evidence that Chinese regulators have indeed used antitrust to remind corporate entities that the state views them as its de-facto agents for implementing the state’s economic vision. The essay therefore contextualizes key developments in China’s political economy while pointing to antitrust as a regulatory tool that addresses a more diverse set of political objectives than traditionally theorized. Finally, the third essay investigates how Chinese firms reconcile contradictory incentives from patent policy in their home market on the one hand and the globalization of technology markets on the other. Standard essential patents for 5G telecommunications are the empirical focus because they are a prime example of the interplay between intellectual property being regulated territorially while the underlying technologies are traded in global markets. Chinese firms are major declarers of SEPs for 5G technologies, but filing practices that previous research identifies as responses to Chinese patent policy can disadvantage firms aiming to have their proprietary technology included in international standards and licensed globally. Patent data for their 5G SEP declarations show a partial but incomplete response to this dilemma: While filing patterns reflect the schedule of international standard setting instead of a year-end surge to meet state targets, evidence remains for a year-end drop in patent quality and limited patent filings abroad. These findings illustrate the tensions that China’s evolving patent policy must navigate in transitioning from an emphasis on quantity to an emphasis on quality. Taken together, these essays invite a more precise contextualization of the major changes underway in China’s political economy: Rather than asserting the demarcation of eras, it is instructive to address iterations of fundamental tensions across them. Even amid Xi Jinping’s current calls to “better balance security and development with a greater emphasis on security,” Chinese leadership is affirming the commitment to “high level openness.” The essays in this dissertation point to a reason why. Be it the way companies are financed, monopolistic actors are addressed, or intellectual property promoted, there is an affirmation of frameworks’ value and just as strong an affirmation to bend them in the most facile way possible to the strategic or political imperatives of a given moment. Defining both that moment and those needs is the essential power dynamic in Chinese innovation policy specifically and Chinese political economy more generally. Geopolitics and national security concerns are indeed pushing toward the selective decoupling of Chinese technologies. Xi Jinping’s reassertion of the state is generating considerable uncertainty for the private sector. Momentous though those changes may be, they must operate through institutional structures already in place. How those institutional structures are repurposed and to what ends will shape this new era of Chinese politics. But it is premature to declare China’s openness a relic of the past. It may be increasingly less fulsome and more calibrated, but it is an inheritance not easily erased and a benefactor not easily discarded. In this regard, the power dynamics of Chinese innovation policy are truly befitting of the dialectical nature that has long defined communist rule.

Enter the password to open this PDF file:

Calling all authoritarians: how to shift the power dynamic in your classes

Using the empowerment framework helps build shared purpose, meaning and respect between professors and students, leading to reciprocal growth and learning

Catherine Whaley

.css-76pyzs{margin-right:0.25rem;} ,, jon mcnaughtan.

• More on this topic

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} Students using generative AI to write essays isn't a crisis

How students’ genai skills affect assignment instructions, turn individual wins into team achievements in group work, access and equity: two crucial aspects of applied learning, emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn.

Relationships are often based on unseen power dynamics. For example, a dynamic where one person has more control of the situation informs the relationship between students and professors, employees and managers, and supervisors and direct reports. At times, this power dynamic can lead to one person unilaterally making decisions and the other person reluctantly acquiescing. This type of dynamic is especially evident in the classroom, and it can often be unsatisfying to both parties when the professor feels weary from the constant effort required to motivate students, while the learner feels helpless and unfulfilled due to not having input into what they are learning.

Faculty need all the tools they can get to engage students, while, on the other hand, students crave mentorship and meaningful academic experiences. Recent research has argued that programmes in higher education that are guided by the empowerment framework have the power to enhance students’ learning experience and increase engagement. The framework, developed by Gretchen Spreitzer in 1995 , has undergone rigorous evaluation in a variety of organisational settings including the healthcare and manufacturing industries. The results have regularly revealed that the empowerment framework can increase participants’ sense of purpose and productivity while lowering attrition.

• The basics of building engagement and motivation for learning online
• Boost learning with online student discussion forums
• Comfort without coddling: how to make students comfortable in the classroom

Using the empowerment framework as a theoretical foundation for practice in higher education changes the dynamic of the classroom by shifting away from authoritarianism towards co-creatorship . A bridge of shared purpose, meaning and respect between professors and students can result in a higher quality of academic interactions and better outcomes. The empowerment framework has been conceptualised into five dimensions, which will frame how we discuss the process for building an empowering learning environment.

Self-efficacy: developing opportunities for confidence in the classroom

Self-efficacy refers to a person’s belief that they can complete a task. Competence, confidence and resource availability are vital to fostering self-efficacy, which in turn will promote empowerment. Professors need to ensure that assignments, class discussions and engagement activities are prefaced with students acquiring the required skills and understanding for them to feel empowered and learn effectively. This approach also requires a significant emphasis on communication or constructive feedback, which is crucial to empowerment. When expectations are communicated clearly, along with gratitude and incremental progress measurements, relationships are more likely to evolve, and people begin to develop confidence in their abilities.

Trust: building authentic relationships

Students earn the trust of their professors by listening attentively, meeting expectations and proving themselves consistently reliable over time. But faculty should also reflect on their own efforts to gain the trust of their students and develop approaches to build authentic relationships. Studies show that trust, or the ability to communicate openly, is essential to developing an empowering relationship. For those in a supervisory role that means taking the initiative to provide regular supportive feedback and being attentive to the needs of others. Too commonly, faculty and advisers put the onus of communication on the student and assume that no news is good news. However, reports show that a lack of connection can leave students feeling isolated, abandoned or unsure of how to proceed. 

Personal consequence: helping students see their value

Personal consequence is about helping students see the value of their contributions to the class. This can be challenging in a classroom setting – where students may be required to attend or the subject matter may require significant time spent in lectures. However, no matter the educational setting, faculty should focus on how to help students feel like more than a number. This could be achieved through simple gestures such as calling students by name and inviting regular check-ins where they can submit questions or comments. Even in classes with hundreds of students, it is critical that faculty take time to do a pulse check of student learning. When students feel valued for their individuality, not just their work or class rank, they are more likely to express buy-in, and are more willing to take on projects of their own volition and fundamentally care more about their learning. 

Self-determination: encouraging autonomy

Every student brings their own unique experiences and expectations to their role, so cookie-cutter scripts and uniform metrics can undermine the value students bring to the table. While deadlines and expectations need to be set, providing opportunities for self-directed activity sends the message that you have confidence in your students’ judgement and so reinforces both trust and self-efficacy. As a faculty member, it’s your responsibility to provide guidance and resources tempered with the space necessary for students to make their own decisions. For example, the content of the course could be set, but students could help determine the order of the content delivery, or professors could leave a few weeks open for topics determined by students. 

Meaning: understanding the impact of learning

Professors can’t give students meaning in their lives, but they can provide students with the tools to eliminate barriers for finding purpose. Different forms of meaning include altruism, personal achievement, asset attainment and relationship development. As professors share information, tying content to impact can help students understand how their learning connects to the world at large and can lead students to their own self-directed sense of meaning.

Putting it all together

Relationships can be complicated, and power dynamics in higher education can exacerbate this challenge, which should prompt professors to seek new ideas to support student learning. Implementation of empowerment principles between professors and students can lead to reciprocal growth and learning. Empowered partners meet you halfway and are enthusiastic about accomplishing mutual goals. By making empowerment a practice through continually developing self-efficacy, trust, personal consequence, self-determination and meaning, all parties involved can have better quality interactions, outcomes and long-term success. 

Catherine Whaley is a doctoral student and Jon McNaughtan is a professor of higher education at Texas Tech University, US.

If you found this interesting and want advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,  sign up for the THE Campus newsletter .

Students using generative AI to write essays isn't a crisis

Eleven ways to support international students, indigenising teaching through traditional knowledge, seven exercises to use in your gender studies classes, rather than restrict the use of ai, embrace the challenge, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

• Nov 13, 2023
• 26 min read

Literary Theory 101: Power Dynamics and Postcolonial Perspectives in Literary Studies

This series examines literary criticism from all angles, examining numerous analytical frameworks, modes of interpretation, and constraints. It belongs to the degree in English Studies offered by the Complutense University of Madrid. Once the series comes to completion, the reader may be able to analyze the components that contribute to a text's literary character, such as coherence and literality, and will develop a critical approach toward contemporary literary theory. The reader of these articles might grasp the shifting paradigms of fiction analysis within this theoretical framework, establishing a link between the philosophy of language and the evolution of analytical methods in literary criticism. This series aims to offer an insight into the complex relationship between style and the cultural environment, historical factors that have shaped the idea of style as well as the changing literary canon. By examining the complex ways in which literature, language, and culture interact with one another, this series aims to help the readers develop their capacity for critical thinking and interpretation.

This Literary Theory 101 is divided into the following chapters:

Literary Theory 101: Unveiling the Collective Subconscious in Myth Criticism

Literary Theory 101: Challenging Gender Dynamics in Literature

Literary Theory 101: Power Structures and Cultural Studies in Literary Analysis

Literary Theory 101: Umberto Eco's Influence on Reader Response Criticism

Literary Theory 101: Power Dynamics and Postcolonial Perspectives

Literary Theory 101: Contemporary Ecocriticism

The development of postcolonial studies in the latter half of the 20th century marked a dramatic shift in intellectual paradigm. The complex after-effects of decolonization in the Americas, Africa, and the Caribbean after World War II gave rise to this development. Because of the long-term effects of colonialism on recently liberated countries, academics, activists, and thinkers were forced to investigate the extended imperial rule on these young communities, which led to the creation of a new academic discourse. Originating from a setting far larger than academia, postcolonial studies are closely associated with social and political movements that support global equity, cultural pluralism, and human rights. Prominent individuals with postcolonial origins are essential in expressing urgent issues and expanding our comprehension of the long-lasting effects of colonialism. It also highlights how crucial it is to shed a light on the day-to-day experiences of historically marginalized populations.

This interdisciplinary field combines viewpoints from several academic fields as political, literary, historical, sociological, anthropological, and cultural studies. The main goal is to offer understanding on the complex dynamics of postcolonial environments, such as nation-building, cultural hybridity, and the legacy of colonialism. A thorough investigation of concerns pertaining to identity, power relations, and representation in postcolonial societies is facilitated by this critical approach. Postcolonial studies, a fundamental element of literary criticism, endeavors to unravel the complex web of relationships that link literature with the lasting cultural, historical, and social effects of the colonial world. Hence, postcolonial studies represent a literary revolution that responds to the turbulent period of colonialism and the ensuing movement for decolonization. This subject continues to be a lively, dynamic field of study that offers significant insights into the current literary conversation about identity, power relations, and the complex craft of representation.

Examining Cultural Hybridity

In literary studies, postcolonial perspectives refer to the examination of literary texts from the perspective of colonized populations and their experiences. This approach arose in response to the colonial legacy and its profound impact on the cultures, societies, and identities of colonized people. Utilizing a wide variety of literary techniques and narrative strategies, postcolonial literature serves as a potent medium for illuminating acts of resistance and subversion against entrenched systems of colonial oppression. It navigates the complexities of postcolonial identities and histories through nuanced narration and linguistic innovation, dismantling the hierarchical structures that have long defined colonial institutions. This literature unquestionably emphasizes the necessity of recognizing coloniality as an enduring aspect of modernity, imploring readers to confront and contend with the persistent effects of colonial legacies. Postcolonial literature not only reclaims marginalized voices, but also nurtures a deeper understanding of the complex relationship between power, identity, and representation in a globalized world. Effectively highlighting the experiences and perspectives of marginalized voices, these academic field casts light on the oppressive structures and power dynamics perpetuated by the legacy of colonialism.

Postcolonial perspectives are an essential intervention in literary studies, profoundly challenging the dominance of Western-dominated canons. These perspectives advocate for the incorporation and recognition of the contributions of non-Western authors, thereby enriching the variety of global literary traditions. Walter D. Mignolo is an esteemed academic of Argentine-American origin, renowned for his significant scholarly contributions in the fields of decolonial studies, postcolonial theory, and critical thinking. Mignolo (2000) delves into the intersection of geopolitics, body politics, and knowledge production, particularly within the context of imperial and colonial histories. Mignolo makes the argument that amid these processes, certain conditions exist that make it possible for individuals to struggle and free themselves from the confines of imperial "absolute knowledge," which is represented metaphorically as an iron cage. In light of this, Mignolo's position on the interconnected nature of power, identity, and the production of knowledge within historical and political settings is given more support. In order to delink thought, according to Mignolo (2000), its Cartesian foundation must be thrown off; this challenges the notion that "I am where I think." Mignolo argues for a paradigm shift wherein identity and actions are situated in a more comprehensive framework, transcending individual cognition, by positing "border thinking and decolonial doing" as a historical reference. The philosophical foundations of thought and identity are called into question and redefined from such an angle: “Delinking thought also means dislocating its Cartesian foundation: "I am where I think" becomes the starting point, the historical foundation of border thinking and decolonial doing”(Mignolo, 2000, p. 14).

Mignolo proposes an alternative perspective to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am": "I am where I think," which emphasizes the significance of a personal identity tinged with the colonial trauma. In his view: “Local decolonial "I´s" dwell in the frontiers between local non-Western and non-modern memories and the intrusions of modern Western local history and knowledge” (Mignolo, 2000, p. 14). Under the influence of thinkers such as Fanon and Anzaldúa, this singular "I" inhabits borderlands and undergoes a distinct trauma in contrast to the Cartesian "I." In contrast to the imperial "I" that is firmly rooted in absolute knowledge, Mignolo's decolonial "I's" explore the nexuses of Western historical intrusion and non-Western recollections, thereby encouraging a liberating border consciousness. The above viewpoint presents a critique of the notion of a universal identity, highlighting the complicated nature of colonial legacies and galvanizing opposition on an international scale: “The "Is" of the colonial wound, which dwells in the borders, provide the liberating energy from which border thinking emerges, in rebellion, all over the planet, from East to West” (Mignolo, 2000, p.14). By interrogating established Western epistemologies and dismantling Eurocentric attitudes, these perspectives highlight the necessity of decolonizing knowledge and herald a paradigm shift in the way readers engage with texts:

With colonialism and coloniality came resistance and refusal. Decoloniality necessarily follows, derives from, and responds to coloniality and the ongoing colonial process and condition. It is a form of struggle and survival, an epistemic and existence-based response and practice—most especially by colonized and racialized subjects—against the colonial matrix of power in all of its dimensions, and for the possibilities of an otherwise (Walsh, 2018, p. 17).

This strategy actively promotes diversity and equity in literary studies and encourages scholars to embrace a multiplicity of knowledge systems. Moreover, postcolonial criticisms serve as a powerful lens for critiquing and deconstructing prevalent colonial narratives. Catherine E. Walsh (2018), an accomplished scholar renowned for her contributions to the field of decoloniality, explains that alternative ways of thinking, ontological positions, epistemological frameworks, and praxiological orientations that exist before and outside of the colonial project are referred to as decolonialit y . Walsh has engaged in collaborative endeavors with Walter D. Mignolo. Collectively, their contributions have enriched the scholarly dialogue pertaining to coloniality, postcolonialism, and decolonial thought. Walsh regards that it is not a fixed state, an individual quality, or a straight road to enlightenment. Rather, the goal of decoloniality is to expose, highlight, and advance distinctly different viewpoints and positions that challenge Western logic as the only possible framework and potentiality for being, understanding, and cognition. This relational method of perception is defended, and the reader is invited to think with (instead of just about) the communities, understandings and intellectual traditions that are offered here. Therefore, it could be asserted that postcolonial narratives not only rectify historical omissions, focusing on silenced discourse through this critical lens, but also pave the way for a more inclusive and equitable literary discourse to give voice to hybrid narratives. Walsh also (2018) observes that decoloniality is a requirement to grasp and deconstruct profoundly embedded hierarchical structures related to heteropatriarchy, gender, and race that continue to hold sway over the domains of consciousness, spirituality, epistemology, and intellectual inquiry.

Resisting and Subverting Colonial Oppression

Postcolonial literature is an in-depth examination of the complex interaction between indigenous cultures and colonizers' cultures. New hybrid forms of culture and identity emerge within this dynamic, bearing witness to the transformative effects of colonial encounters. The commitment to highlighting the narratives and lived experiences of historically marginalized and oppressed groups, who endured the weight of colonial subjugation, is central to postcolonial perspectives. These perspectives provide an indispensable framework for perceiving and deconstructing the enduring legacies of colonialism in literature and culture. What is also highlighted is the crucial significance of recognizing and honoring a multiplicity of voices and experiences in the larger discourse of world literature, thereby enhancing our comprehension of the intricate human history and expression. Walsh regards that these systems are both a part of and deeply entwined with the larger framework of Western modernity and global capitalism. Moreover, that decoloniality denotes the ongoing nature of efforts, conceptions, and artistic expressions that continuously function at the boundaries and in between of coloniality, attempting to make legitimate that which coloniality has attempted to negate:

Decoloniality has a history, herstory, and praxis of more than 5oo years. From its beginnings in the Americas, decoloniality has been a component part of (trans) local struggles, movements, and actions to resist and refuse the legacies and ongoing relations and patterns of power established by external and internal colonialism (Walsh, 2018, p. 16).

Walsh sheds light on the fact that decoloniality, with roots in the Americas, has spanned more than five centuries and emerged as a crucial element within both local and global movements. It acts as a catalyst for initiatives meant to challenge and reject the pervasive power dynamics brought about by both internal and external colonialism. Walsh´s interpretation about this timeless historical account emphasizes how decoloniality is still relevant now in addressing historical injustices that are deeply embedded and power disparities that still exist. Walsh points out that insurgency is a profoundly embedded notion in historical discourse, spans a wide range of insurrections, rebellions, and contestatory acts. These occurrences imply critical junctures at which individuals or collectives, unsatisfied with current sociopolitical arrangements, proactively participate in activities aiming at opposing existing norms and power dynamics. In doing so, insurgents join up historical initiatives aimed at either dismantling or reconfiguring existing governing structures, so interfacing directly with the core concepts of power and dominance. This dialectical interaction between insurgent actors and established power structures is a perpetual conflict that substantially influences the trajectory of societies and polities across time. The contours of political transition and social metamorphosis are often visible within this crucible of controversy, indicating a dynamic interplay that supports the development of human societies:

Yet seldom are such references conceived with relation to knowl edge and (re)existence. That is, as offensive actions and proactive protagonisms of construction, creation, intervention, and affirmation that purport to intervene in and transgress, not just the social, cultural, and political terrains but also, and most importantly, the intellectual arena (Walsh, 2018, p. 34).

Walsh (2018) describes that decolonial feminisms, placed within the larger framework of postcolonial studies, provide a significant scholarly contribution in the debate pertaining to gender, power dynamics, and the enduring effects of colonialism. These tools serve as analytical instruments that not only examine the historical consequences of colonialism, but also deconstruct the overlapping mechanisms of subjugation that impact women, especially those positioned on the periphery of society. These paradigms emphasize the significance of prioritizing the perspectives and narratives of women belonging to historically oppressed populations to achieve a holistic comprehension of power relations. Decolonial feminisms provide a nuanced viewpoint on the intricate dynamics of postcolonial cultures, facilitating the development of practical approaches that contest prevailing hierarchies and promote more inclusivity and equity in social structures. She contends that these methods have the potential to not only contribute to the larger debate within postcolonial studies, but also to spark transformational change in the search of greater social justice. She notes that the study of insurgency transcends a restricted emphasis on openly political activity within the context of postcolonial studies. It is a thorough analysis of the cognitive and existential components that motivate acts of resistance and collective action. These elements are tightly intertwined and carry the permanent traces of historical legacies. These relationships are witnessing a revival in the present context, taking special importance for historically disadvantaged groups, collectives, and movements operating within postcolonial frameworks. These actors use these interrelationships to enforce their rights and make meaningful changes in the sociopolitical fabric of postcolonial states (Walsh, 2018, p. 34).

Walsh regards that the new decolonial feminist positions, which are gaining prominence in current discussions, aim to challenge the dominant Western rationalism and predominant rhetoric of white, Eurocentric feminism. These perspectives also seek to deconstruct the unique notion of femininity that is associated with this discourse: “According to Betty Ruth Lozano, there is a critical examination of the deeply ingrained "modern colonial habitus" that has normalized Western-centric perspectives and classifications of gender and patriarchy within the realm of feminism” (Walsh, 2018, p. 41). Consequently, this process could marginalize and subjugates alternative cosmogonies to the dominant (Western) framework. The decolonial feminist views endorse a pluralistic comprehension of feminisms, recognizing the diverse range of viewpoints and lived experiences that contribute to the discussion on gender and power relations. Walsh remarks that the theoretical framework known as decolonial feminism highlights its transformational ability by emphasizing its potential to surpass the coloniality of gender. This particular method represents a significant divergence from existing paradigms, providing a detailed and thorough reassessment of gender dynamics within postcolonial settings. Through the critical examination and questioning of the prevailing Western-centric conceptualizations of gender and patriarchy within feminist discourse, decolonial feminism not only undermines existing hierarchies but also offers a space for the recognition and appreciation of different cosmogonies and viewpoints. The current movement in perspective towards a diverse comprehension of feminisms exemplifies the substantial influence that decolonial feminism may have in altering conceptions of gender and power within present-day society.

Decolonial feminisms, in this sense, name, situate, and articulate the pluri- a nd interversals o f feminisms, understood as spheres not of unification (or universalization) but of pluralism, plurality, and possible interrelation. As such, decolonial feminisms disrupt and transgress the white feminist universal as they pursue insurgencies, standpoints, and propositions of decoloniality and decolonization (Walsh, 2018, p. 39)

Walsh (2018) discusses that the implementation of decolonial concepts transcends geographical limitations, including a wide range of civilizations located in areas sometimes referred to as the "Souths," such as Asia, the Pacific, the Arab world, Africa, and Latin America. For Walsh, proficiently representing the South within the domain of postcolonial studies necessitates the exposure of neglected knowledge systems, the reclamation of historical narratives, and the amplification of collective memories. Through an examination of novel political frameworks that redefine self-determination in a global context, this nuanced depiction depicts the resilience of diverse cultures traversing the aftermath of colonial legacies. The historical imbalances that have been established and the agency with which the South has shaped its own narrative distinguish it as more than a mere geographical entity:

Decolonial praxis has no geographical limits. It is present in the civilizations of the "Souths," in Asia, the Pacific, the Arab world, and Africa as well as Latin America; the South that Kumar poetically describes as insurrection of subjugated knowledges, history, memory, and new political imaginaries (Walsh, 2018, p. 45).

Therefore, decolonial praxis might traverse the Souths, including the Souths in the North. Recalled are the perspectives that Chicanas and other U.S. based feminists of color have given to decoloniality and decolonial praxis (e.g., Gloria Anzaldúa, Chela Sandoval, Emma Pérez, and Maria Lugones, among others). Although the participants in these activities may not always explicitly label them as decolonial or place them within the conceptual framework of decoloniality, their efforts can be understood as such due to their aspirational and future-oriented actions aimed at pursuing an alternative path. It is crucial to emphasize that this viewpoint does not aim to enforce decoloniality as an inflexible conceptual framework or analytical tool, nor does it attempt to simplistically categorize rebellious movements. The primary aim of this endeavor is to expand our understanding of decoloniality by considering several aspects such as action, insurgency, future involvement, praxis, and the overall goal. This methodology aims to acknowledge the many and complex manifestations of decoloniality within the wider context of sociopolitical movements.

Postcolonial Voices in Literature

Postcolonial studies reveals, by means of a methodical analysis, how literature functions as a forum for deep contemplation and introspection regarding the ongoing consequences of colonialism. In the process, it sheds light on the complex power dynamics that defined relationships between conquerors and colonized people. It recognizes colonialism as an enduring framework of power that still has an impact on modern societies and global interactions, rather than as a singular historical event. A thorough investigation of political ideology in literature serves as the foundation for an extensive textual analysis, highlighting the significant interaction between a written piece and its socio-political and cultural context. An interdisciplinary approach is required for this project, which involves combining viewpoints from multiple academic fields. In this particular perspective, literary works take on the roles of prisms and reflected surfaces, capturing the complex web of discourses and social constructs that compete for existence at the intersection of fabrication and reality. According to this viewpoint, literature not only reflects the dominant ideas and power structures of its day, but also critically examines them.

This point of view maintains that literary works are greatly influenced by a wide range of social constructions and discourses. This claim emphasizes literature's status as a dynamic form that both shapes and is shaped by the sociopolitical developments of its era. In addition, it promotes the formation of common beliefs and perspectives, helping to improve awareness of society and its complex stories as as a whole. Academics working in this topic are committed to revealing the contradictions and intricacies that are inherent in colonial relationships. They accomplish this by critically examining the conceptual underpinnings of colonial control, including its political, economic, and cultural aspects. This approach also goes toward comprehending the lasting consequences of colonialism and its outgrowth eras. Postcolonial studies have taken a bold stance in challenging firmly held Eurocentric paradigms and scrutinizing established narratives, which has significantly improved our understanding of the relationship between global politics, culture, and historical accounts. These studies emerged from the recognition that traditional academic fields, deeply entrenched in Eurocentric viewpoints, were inadequate in addressing the distinct challenges encountered by postcolonial countries. It became apparent that it was an interdisciplinary journey designed to address the difficulties faced by postcolonial countries and provide a haven for viewpoints that were silenced. This Eurocentric attitude unintentionally marginalized non-Western viewpoints, which led to a distorted representation of global dynamics.

According to Walsh, the application of decolonial praxis has the capacity to surpass traditional geographical limitations by include areas that are not often classified as "Souths," even within the Northern hemisphere. The idea mentioned above elicits the many viewpoints put out by Chicanas and other feminists of color residing in the United States. These individuals have made significant contributions by providing vital understandings of the notions of decoloniality and decolonial praxis. She acknowledges that distinguished individuals within this scholarly conversation, such as Gloria Anzaldúa, have had a substantial impact on the comprehension and implementation of these concepts. Anzaldúa's scholarly contributions arise from a deep and thoughtful involvement with the intricate dynamics of borders, including both tangible and symbolic realms, wherein many cultures and identities converge. The author's essays offer light on the possibility for transformation that arises from embracing hybridity, questioning existing conventions, and reframing concepts of belonging. Anzaldúa work serves as a compelling invitation to critically reassess dominant frameworks and to emphasize the importance of inclusion and acknowledgment of a wide range of perspectives in the goal of decolonial praxis.

Anzaldúa’s significance within the realm of postcolonial studies stems from his active involvement in counter-hegemonic discourse and intersectionality, making her a pivotal figure in this area. Her primary aim of the individual is to conduct an inquiry into and rectify perceived social disparities within a postcolonial context. To achieve the overarching objective, she formulates an innovative writing theory that functions as an ongoing exploration of the intricate process of constructing one's identity. The issue at hand has substantial importance within the realm of postcolonial discourse. This theoretical framework exemplifies Anzaldúa's unwavering commitment to instigating transformative cultural processes within postcolonial contexts, as well as her stress on the need of direct involvement. Her collection of work exhibits a resounding call to address and rectify enduring structural inequalities. Anzaldúa expresses her inclination to address societal inequalities and openly commits herself to catalyzing action with the aim of stimulating a transformative process of personal growth. She does this by explicitly expressing her desire to address societal disparities. The proactive strategy, aimed at dismantling repressive institutions and fostering alternative cultural narratives, inherently necessitates the development of a novel postcolonial perspective that interrogates established paradigms. The rationale for this proactive perspective is rooted in the objective of dismantling repressive systems and establishing alternative cultural narratives.

Anzaldúa’s scholarly journey characterized by a discernible reluctance to uncritically embrace conventional frameworks. The aforementioned viewpoint she offers within the realm of postcolonial studies is illuminated by this particular attitude. This approach encompasses the exploration of alternative frameworks and potentialities, particularly within the context of marginalized communities grappling with the consequences of colonialism. Her corpus of work not only offers a strategic framework for addressing internalized oppression, but also engages in a critical examination of power dynamics via a postcolonial lens influenced by the theories of Michel Foucault. French philosopher and social theorist Michel Foucault became widely recognized for his profound insights concerning the interplay among power, knowledge, and societal institutions. His groundbreaking concepts have had a profound impact on contemporary philosophy and the social sciences. Additionally, her portfolio includes a rectification technique aimed at addressing internalized injustice. The analytical framework elucidates the reasons for her opposition to the prevailing sociopolitical and economic structure, as it is seen insufficient in facilitating genuine postcolonial transformation. The critical stance serves as a fundamental element of her postcolonial praxis, situated at the intersection of academic investigation and practical, transformational engagement.

In summary, the presence of influential figures like Gloria Anzaldúa within the field of postcolonial studies underscores the critical need of amplifying the perspectives and experiences of postcolonial individuals. The works of Anzaldúa provide compelling evidence of the enduring impact of colonial legacies, particularly for those who navigate several cultural identities. Anzaldúa advocates for a critical reassessment of dominant paradigms via her use of counter-hegemonic discourse and an intersectional methodology. The individual in question highlights the significance of transformative cultural processes and the dismantling of repressive structures. The provision of a forum for postcolonial voices, shown by Anzaldúa's work, is important in order to fulfill the ultimate objective of postcolonial studies. The aforementioned voices not only illuminate the intricate experiences of individuals navigating postcolonial conditions, but they also provide vital perspectives on the power dynamics and modes of opposition that persistently shape the global environment. By foregrounding different viewpoints, there arises a need to engage in a critical reassessment of the established narratives and strive towards a future that is both inclusive and equitable in the context of postcolonialism.

Mignolo's Decolonial Perspectives

Through his advocacy of decoloniality as a prism through which to examine the enduring effects of colonialism and Eurocentrism critically, Walter Mignolo significantly propels the field forward. The author's work undertakes a critical examination of coloniality, interrogates Eurocentric viewpoints, and underscores the significance of alternative knowledge systems. Mignolo has written significant scholarly publications and essays pertaining to these subject matters, and has held prestigious academic posts at universities such as Duke University. Mignolo emphasizes (2000) the importance of viewpoints that emerge from the Global South, regions that are frequently overlooked in conventional academic circles. This matches Walsh´s perspective, who believes that war in the global South is more than just physical violence; it is a wider struggle based in existence and knowledge. Mignolo also highlights the ways in which territorial dynamics, ethnicity, and gender define this battle. This emphasizes the necessity of a comprehensive study that transcends traditional military or geopolitical viewpoints: “Many in the Souths of the world, including the Souths in the North, know it well. It is a war of violence, destruction, and elimination, a war that is epistemic and existence based, a war that is feminized, racialized, and territorialized” (Walsh, 2018, p. 15). These ideas may emphasize the persistent state of conflict endured by a significant portion of nations in the global South, characterized by acts of violence, widespread damage, and the systematic eradication of individuals and communities. Walsh observes that the phenomenon under consideration acts on both epistemic and existential planes, exhibiting distinct characteristics such as feminization, racialization, and territorialization.

Mignolo analyzes this as well. In his view the everlasting presence of colonial power structures go beyond the confines of the historical colonial era. He explains that the persistence of coloniality in countries such as Latin America continues to have a significant influence on cultures, playing a role in shaping the establishment of emerging nation-states. This highlights the enduring influence of dominance beyond the conventional duration of colonial governance. Nevertheless, he makes a distinction:

Coloniality of power shall be distinguished from the colonial period, in Latin America extending itself from the early sixteenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth, when most of the Spanish-speaking countries and Brazil gained independence from Spain and Portugal and began to be constituted as new nation-states (Mignolo, 2018, p. 87).

Mignolo espouses the cause of decolonizing knowledge production, recognizing the intrinsic value of diverse epistemologies that have been relegated to the periphery as a result of paradigms centered on the West. According to Mignolo, border thinking has a central tenet—a dual awareness that supports a dual critique. This critical position analyzes the complex interactions between modernity and coloniality, operating at the very center of the modern/colonial world system. This viewpoint draws attention to the intricate relationships between these socio-political processes and challenges us to reevaluate traditional perspectives. As such, it creates opportunities for a more thorough understanding of many factors that influence our world. The concept of "border thinking," as introduced by the author, challenges the prevailing Eurocentric understanding and advocates for the recognition and appreciation of diverse global perspectives. According to Mignolo, the focus of research should be on the knowledges that emerge from the experiences of subaltern movements and physical practice. This author suggests that these grassroots fights produce new epistemic viewpoints and serve as testing grounds for theoretical ideas and cognitive frameworks that are constantly refined. Mignolo also emphasizes how vital life experiences are in forming and perfecting the terrain of knowledge generation, stating that: “Decoloniality, without a doubt, is also contextual, relational, practice based, and lived. In addition, it is intellectually, spiritually, emotionally, and existentially entangled and interwoven” (Mignolo, 2018, p. 19). Mignolo (2018) investigates thoroughly the resurgence and expansion of grassroots knowledge that cultivates from a process of embodied struggle and practical commitment. This lasting process not only offers novel concepts and conceptual frameworks, but it also continuously revitalizes current ones. Without a doubt, decoloniality has roots across numerous contextual landscapes, taking its life from the interplay of connections and real-life encounters. This fluid braiding extends to cognitive, spiritual, emotional, and ontological domains, leaving behind a complex quilt of interwoven elements. Decoloniality is, in essence, a comprehensive performing that not only acknowledges but actively meets the multiple, interrelated parameters of human life and knowledge creation.

Mignolo concludes that Hegel's philosophy exemplifies a Eurocentric perspective by dissecting the period from 1500 to 2000. By maintaining a narrative of exclusive cultural superiority, this paradigm regards Western history as the pinnacle of human progress. Indicating a nuanced departure from the presumption that Western history solely exemplifies human progress, Mignolo (2000) discreetly alludes to a current of transformation in contemporary global movements that challenges this Eurocentrism. This statement indicates a shift away from a one-dimensional narrative by suggesting a more comprehensive acknowledgement of the interconnected, varied local histories, he regard that before. Thus, Mignolo (2000) argues that attempts to redefine "universal history" in the twenty-first century are motivated by a longing for imperialistic dominance over the past. In an effort to decolonize knowledge, he contends that non-Western local histories are inextricably intertwined with Western narratives and proposes "border thinking" as a crucial epistemology. As per Mignolo, this procedure is of the utmost importance in the reconstruction of decolonial local histories and the restoration of dignity that was eradicated by the Western concept of universal history.

Ownership was expressed by building a system of knowledge as if it were the sum and guardian of all knowledges, past and present. Hegel's lessons in the philosophy of history remain the single and most telling document of that epistemic victory. But this cycle is ending, and today there are strong planet-wide and diverse (not monolithic) tendencies in thewriting of local histories that go beyond one history anchored in Greece and Rome; a tendency toward delinking from the myth of universal history that has kept them prisoner and affirming that there are no histories other than local (Mignolo, 2ooo, p. 5).

Mignolo claims that the discomfort surrounding modernity and Western culture stems not from their historical impact on a global scale, but rather from the imperialistic presumption that non-Western societies need to adhere to Western cosmological frameworks. The author engages in a critical analysis of the notion that global history follows a singular trajectory, ultimately culminating in a contemporary era that aligns exclusively with Western civilization, as proposed by Hegel. Mignolo presents a critique of the Eurocentric perspective, emphasizing the imposition of a monolithic narrative and the presumption that all nations should conform to a Western-centric viewpoint.: “Both the political and the economic expansion of Western civilization have gone hand in hand with the management of all spheres of knowledge. Or, worded differently, Western civilization's ability to manage knowledge explains its success in expanding itself politically and economically” (Mignolo, 2000, p. 5). Mignolo (2018) regards that border thinking emerges as a complex approach that incorporates awareness and critical analysis, encompassing an in-depth examination of both the modern/colonial global system and the intricate conceptual frameworks of modernity/coloniality. In his view, the fundamental power dynamics of coloniality can be seen via this prism, quietly intertwined throughout the very core of present-day global epistemology. In his vision, it is critical to distinguish power coloniality from the historical colonial period in Latin America. While the latter lasted from the early sixteenth century to the dawn of the nineteenth century, leading up to the separation of Spanish-speaking nations and Brazil from Spain and Portugal, the earlier is still a powerful force in the region, shaping the socio-political landscape in ways that transcend historical epochs. The disparity could exemplify Latin America's continued battle for self-determination, with questions regarding how colonialism continues to influence South American nations' growing narratives and their persistent drive for autonomy and equitable representation. A critical viewpoint on the effects of colonialism and Eurocentrism can be found in Mignolo's support of decoloniality and border thinking. By valuing voices from the Global South and highlighting the intricacy of conflict, he questions established academic paradigms. His distinction between the colonial era and coloniality of power gives the analysis more nuance. Furthermore, Mignolo emphasizes the significance of several epistemologies in his appeal for the decolonization of knowledge creation. Considering everything, his work challenges conventional wisdom and promotes a more thorough comprehension of global dynamics.

Spivak and the Subaltern Voice

An additional notable figure in postcolonial theory, Chakravorty Gayatri Spivak, contributes to this discourse by introducing pivotal concepts that offer fresh perspectives on the intricate interplay between ideology, society, and literature. Spivak introduces the concept of "subaltern," which refers to subjugated and marginalized groups whose opinions are frequently ignored or repressed in dominant dialogue. Spivak's active participation in deconstruction is notably apparent in her seminal essay "Can the Subaltern Speak?" (1988), wherein she challenges long-held notions concerning voice and representation. Through an analysis of whether or not the language and structures imposed by dominant powers permit the subaltern to express their experiences authentically, this author highlights the complexities and limitations of representation itself. Spivak conducts an in-depth investigation of the question of whether or not the voices of the subaltern can be articulated in a meaningful way. Her analysis is centered on Antonio Gramsci's research into what he calls the "subaltern classes," which is a phrase he uses in his investigation. This investigation delves deep into the conversation about class consciousness and position within the larger context of postcolonial dynamics. In Spivak's interpretation, Gramsci's criticism of the vanguardistic posture taken by intellectuals emerges as a central issue. This critique hints that Gramsci was deeply concerned about the essential role that intellectuals play in molding the cultural and political trajectory of subaltern groups as they make their way towards hegemony. This debate sheds light on the power dynamics inherent in the interaction between intellectuals and marginalized communities within the context of both colonialism and postcolonialism, raising questions about the agency and representational challenges faced by subaltern voices in the context of postcolonial studies.

Spivak's position on the junction of feminism and postcolonial studies is critical. This author's research focuses on the obstacles that women face when attempting to achieve autonomy under patriarchal and colonial structures in postcolonial environments. Spivak emphasizes the critical need of recognizing and elevating the experiences and perspectives of women, particularly those from disadvantaged areas. Spivak argues for a more broad and diversified approach to intellectual inquiry while providing a sharp critique of Eurocentric knowledge creation practices. The scholar's steadfast commitment to using education to benefit oppressed populations aligns well with the general goals of postcolonial studies. These goals, which spring from the desire to dismantle oppressive structures and give voice to the voiceless, are genuinely reflected in the perspectives she proposes. Spivak (1988) observes that as exemplars of the broader intellectual category, postcolonial intellectuals acknowledge their privilege as a form of loss. For Spivak, it is recognized that deconstructive and specific feminist criticisms incorporate the feminine in a parallel manner. In contrast to the narrative sanctions imposed by dominant groups on the colonial subject, the subject implied in insurgent texts presents an alternative reality. The phallocentric tradition is utilized to manipulate a 'woman' figure in the former:

Subaltern historiography raises questions of method that would prevent it from using such a ruse. For the 'figure' of woman, the relationship between woman and silence can be plotted by women themselves; race and class differences are subsumed under that charge. Subaltern historiography must confront the impossibility of such gestures. The narrow epistemic violence of imperialism gives us an imperfect allegory of the general violence that is the possibility of an episteme (Spivak, 1988, p. 82).

However, Spivak notes that due to methodological obstacles, subaltern historiography is unable to implement such approaches. Subterranean historiography confronts the impossibility of such gestures, in contrast to the 'figure' of woman, in which women themselves can articulate their relationship with silence. An imperfect allegory is used to represent the overarching violence that is intrinsic in the very possibility of episteme, through the limited epistemic violence of imperialism. In her view, the obscured trajectory of the subaltern subject within the paradigm of postcolonial studies is characterized by the dual erasure of the path of sexual difference. The primary focus extends beyond the quantifiable dimensions of female participation in insurgency or the establishment of standards for the sexual division of labor, both of which are supported by observable "evidence": “On the other side of the international division of labor, the subject of exploitation cannot know and speak the text of female exploitation even if the absurdity of the non-representing intellectual making space for her to speak is achieved. The woman is doubly in shadow” (Spivak, 1988, p. 82). Thus, focus is redirected towards the intricate and diverse ways in which the ideological construction of gender sustains male hegemony—serving as the focal point of colonialist historiography and the origin of insurgency. Within the framework of colonial production, the subaltern materializes as an obscured entity devoid of any apparent historical heritage, thereby representing a marginalized group without a clear historical provenance. This throws traditional understandings of historical agency into question in the context of postcolonialism. The portrayal of the subaltern as a precarious entity, involved in a contestation for acknowledgement and historical importance within the overarching discourse of colonization, sheds a light on the intricate interplay of power, agency, and gender in postcolonial studies. Through the utilization of Spivak´s contributions, literature could be critically analyzed placing it in the context of broader sociopolitical and historical circumstances. Spivak's scholarly endeavors highlight the complexities of power relations, agency, and representation within postcolonial frameworks; thus, they offer indispensable insights into the intricate interplay between literature, ideology, and society. Through her actions, Spivak maintains a vital dialogue concerning the enduring repercussions of colonialism and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and varied approach to scholarly inquiry.

Conclusions

In summary, the advent of postcolonial studies throughout the later portion of the 20th century denoted a noteworthy intellectual transition, propelled by the deep ramifications of decolonization in various global locations. The area of study that encompasses several disciplines has been significant in providing insights into the long-lasting impacts of colonialism on recently emancipated cultures. Postcolonial studies is an interdisciplinary field that seeks to comprehend the intricate dynamics of postcolonial contexts and investigate matters pertaining to identity, power dynamics, and representation. The incorporation of postcolonial viewpoints within the field of literary studies has emerged as a crucial response to prevailing Western canons, serving to advocate for the acknowledgment and incorporation of non-Western voices. This method presents a critique of dominant colonial narratives and advocates for the decolonization of knowledge, therefore enhancing the diversity and inclusivity of global literary traditions. Postcolonial literature, characterized by its intricate storytelling and inventive use of language, is as a potent tool for challenging and undermining established structures of colonial subjugation. It emphasizes the need to address and grapple with the lasting ramifications of colonial inheritances. Moreover, the notion of decoloniality, as expounded by renowned academics such as Catherine E. Walsh, underscores the perpetual character of endeavors aimed at opposing and questioning the enduring effects of colonialism. The objective of this comprehensive strategy is to analyze and dismantle deeply ingrained hierarchical systems pertaining to gender, racism, and power dynamics. The statement recognizes insurgency as a concept well rooted in history, including various actions of opposition that seek to interfere not only in sociopolitical realms but also in the realm of ideas.

Furthermore, Walsh's examination of decolonial feminisms within the wider context of postcolonial studies elucidates their crucial significance in tackling matters pertaining to gender, power relations, and the lasting consequences of colonialism. These analytical instruments not only deconstruct the historical consequences of colonialism but also untangle the interconnected processes of oppression that disproportionately impact women, especially those who are marginalized in society. Decolonial feminisms emphasize the significance of prioritizing the viewpoints and stories of women who have been historically marginalized, in order to get a thorough comprehension of power dynamics. The aforementioned perspective provides a sophisticated framework for analyzing the complex dynamics within postcolonial societies. This framework facilitates the development of pragmatic strategies aimed at challenging prevailing hierarchies and developing inclusion and equality within social systems. The potential for transformation goes beyond the realm of academic discourse, as it has the capacity to stimulate significant change in the quest of enhanced social justice. The inclusion of viewpoints from prominent people such as Gloria Anzaldúa and other feminists of color in the United States, who have made significant contributions to the comprehension and implementation of decoloniality, introduces an essential aspect to this ongoing discussion. Anzaldúa's body of work places significant emphasis on the value of embracing hybridity, interrogating existing traditions, and recontextualizing conceptions of belonging. The author's essays provide a compelling argument for the critical reevaluation of prevailing frameworks and the prioritization of diverse viewpoints in the goal of decolonial praxis.

The discussions pertaining to decolonial feminisms and decoloniality signify a significant advancement within the field of postcolonial studies. These discussions challenge existing paradigms and present novel approaches to comprehending and confronting the lasting consequences of colonialism on gender relations and systems of power. These many views push us to critically reassess and reformulate the narratives that influence our comprehension of the world, so facilitating the development of more comprehensive and fair societies. Postcolonial studies has a profound influence that extends beyond the confines of academia, permeating wider social and political structures. This academic effort has played a pivotal role in shaping the actions and initiatives of organizations and movements that promote cultural diversity, safeguard human rights, and construct systems of international justice. The field of postcolonial studies offers a vital theoretical framework for understanding the enduring impacts of colonialism via the revelation of obscured historical truths. Moreover, people of postcolonial descent have emerged as influential advocates, successfully articulating the challenges faced by their own communities and fostering a comprehensive dialogue. The narratives generated by people play a crucial role in catalyzing transformational processes by drawing attention to the complex and inequitable elements that persist within a postcolonial global framework. These notable figures play a significant role in the ongoing pursuit of a just and unbiased global community, aiming to rectify historical injustices and promote a more inclusive future for all persons. The perpetual discourse around identity, representation, and power relations serves as a testament to the ever-evolving character of postcolonial studies. The evolving ideas and theories serve as a crucial asset for scholars and advocates alike, addressing contemporary issues and ensuring that the nuances of postcolonial contexts remain visible among shifting global dynamics. The persistence and application of postcolonial ideas are shown by the existence of this diverse discipline, which underscores their vital role in fostering a more equitable and humane global society.

Bibliographical References

Bhabha, H. (1994). Location of Culture . New York & London: Routledge.

Demetz, P. et al. (eds.), (1968). The Disciplines of Criticism: Essays in Literary Theory, Interpretation and History . Yale University Press.

Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking . Raleigh: Duke University Press.

Mignolo, W. D. (2011). The Darker Side of Western Modernity . New Jersey: Princeton U.P.

Mignolo, W. D., & Walsh, C. E. (2018). On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis . Raleigh: Duke University Press.

Pat, M. (2008). Nepantla: Essays from the Land in the Middle . Albuquerque: New Mexico U.P.

Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture (pp. 271-313). University of Illinois Press.

Visual Sources

• Post Colonial Literature

Daniela Sandoval

Arcadia, has many categories starting from Literature to Science. If you liked this article and would like to read more, you can subscribe from below or click the bar and discover unique more  experiences  in our articles in many categories

Let the posts come to you.

Thanks for submitting!

Great Power Dynamics Essays

Navigating great power dynamics in the indian ocean region: implications for u.s. national security strategy, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

The Rise of Adolf Hitler: a Complex Path to Power

This essay is about Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, examining the factors that contributed to his ascent. It discusses the impact of the Treaty of Versailles and the economic turmoil of the Weimar Republic, which created a climate of despair and disillusionment in Germany. Hitler’s oratory skills, political strategies, and propaganda helped him gain support. Key events like the Beer Hall Putsch, the Great Depression, and his appointment as Chancellor in 1933 were pivotal. The essay highlights how Hitler consolidated power through the Reichstag Fire, the Enabling Act, and the Night of the Long Knives, transforming Germany into a totalitarian state and setting the stage for World War II and the Holocaust.

How it works

Adolf Hitler’s ascent to authority stands as one of the most pivotal and unsettling episodes in contemporary annals. His elevation was not an abrupt event but rather a gradual progression fueled by an array of socio-political dynamics, economic tumult, and Hitler’s own Machiavellian political maneuvers. Comprehending this ascendancy necessitates a thorough exploration of the intricate interplay of post-World War I circumstances, the shortcomings of the Weimar Republic, and Hitler’s compelling charisma.

The aftermath of the Great War laid the groundwork for Hitler’s rise.

Germany found itself disgraced and financially crippled by the Treaty of Versailles, which exacted severe reparations and territorial concessions. This treaty bred widespread animosity among Germans, who harbored feelings of betrayal and indignation. The Weimar Republic, established in 1919, was perceived as feeble and ineffectual in addressing the economic and social crises afflicting the nation. Hyperinflation in the early 1920s decimated the savings of countless middle-class Germans, while the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 exacerbated unemployment and economic instability. In such an atmosphere of despondency and disillusionment, extremist political ideologies found a receptive audience.

Adolf Hitler, once an obscure Austrian artist and veteran of the Great War, aligned himself with the German Workers’ Party in 1919, later rebranded as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP), or Nazi Party. Hitler’s eloquence and propaganda prowess swiftly catapulted him to a leadership role. He pledged to restore Germany’s former glory, repudiate the Treaty of Versailles, and combat the perceived menace of communism and Jewish influence.

His oratorical prowess struck a chord with many Germans who yearned for change.

The thwarted Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 marked a turning point for Hitler. Though the coup attempt to overthrow the Weimar government failed and led to his imprisonment, it bestowed upon him national notoriety. During his nine-month incarceration, Hitler penned “Mein Kampf,” delineating his ideological vision for Germany, including his anti-Semitic convictions and the concept of Lebensraum, or living space, which justified German expansionism. This period allowed Hitler to refine his strategy, transitioning from violent revolution to attaining power through legitimate political means.

The Great Depression played a pivotal role in Hitler’s ascent. The economic collapse precipitated mass unemployment and deepened public discontent with the Weimar Republic. The Nazi Party, which promised economic recovery, social stability, and national rejuvenation, garnered significant support. In the 1930 elections, the Nazis emerged as the second-largest party in the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament. By 1932, they had become the largest party, albeit without an outright majority.

Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor on January 30, 1933, stemmed from political maneuvering and the underestimation of his resolve by conservative politicians who believed they could manipulate him. President Paul von Hindenburg and other conservative leaders believed that by integrating Hitler into the government, they could leverage his popularity to stabilize the country while keeping him in check. This miscalculation proved catastrophic.

Upon assuming power, Hitler swiftly moved to consolidate his authority. The Reichstag Fire in February 1933, which the Nazis attributed to communists, provided a pretext for the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending civil liberties and enabling the arrest of political adversaries. The Enabling Act, ratified in March 1933, bestowed dictatorial powers upon Hitler by authorizing him to enact laws without parliamentary approval. Leveraging these powers, Hitler dismantled democratic institutions, quashed opposition, and established a totalitarian regime.

Hitler’s consolidation of power also entailed the alignment and control of key state apparatuses. The Night of the Long Knives in 1934 witnessed the purge of the SA’s leadership, perceived as a threat to Hitler’s authority. This purge solidified the loyalty of the German military, which had regarded the SA with suspicion. Upon President Hindenburg’s demise in August 1934, Hitler merged the positions of Chancellor and President, proclaiming himself Führer and seizing absolute control over Germany.

Propaganda and indoctrination played pivotal roles in sustaining Hitler’s grip on power. Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, orchestrated extensive campaigns to disseminate Nazi ideology and glorify Hitler. The regime controlled the media, arts, and education to propagate its doctrines and suppress dissent. The Hitler Youth and League of German Girls were established to indoctrinate young Germans and ensure the allegiance of future generations.

In summation, Hitler’s ascent to power was a multifaceted process influenced by Germany’s post-World War I milieu, economic instability, the vulnerabilities of the Weimar Republic, and Hitler’s own political acumen and ruthless tactics. His adept exploitation of German despair and resentment, coupled with strategic political maneuvers and effective propaganda, enabled him to transfigure Germany into a totalitarian state. The repercussions of his rise were catastrophic, precipitating World War II and the Holocaust, which left an indelible imprint on history. Understanding the factors that facilitated Hitler’s ascent is imperative in averting similar travails in the future and ensuring that the lessons of history endure.

Cite this page

The Rise of Adolf Hitler: A Complex Path to Power. (2024, Jun 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-rise-of-adolf-hitler-a-complex-path-to-power/

"The Rise of Adolf Hitler: A Complex Path to Power." PapersOwl.com , 1 Jun 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-rise-of-adolf-hitler-a-complex-path-to-power/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Rise of Adolf Hitler: A Complex Path to Power . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-rise-of-adolf-hitler-a-complex-path-to-power/ [Accessed: 3 Jun. 2024]

"The Rise of Adolf Hitler: A Complex Path to Power." PapersOwl.com, Jun 01, 2024. Accessed June 3, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-rise-of-adolf-hitler-a-complex-path-to-power/

"The Rise of Adolf Hitler: A Complex Path to Power," PapersOwl.com , 01-Jun-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-rise-of-adolf-hitler-a-complex-path-to-power/. [Accessed: 3-Jun-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). The Rise of Adolf Hitler: A Complex Path to Power . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-rise-of-adolf-hitler-a-complex-path-to-power/ [Accessed: 3-Jun-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Fast dynamics and low power losses of high-speed solenoid valve based on optimized pre-excitation control algorithm

• Mao, Yong-xin
• Xu, En-guang
• Wang, Xie-le
• Li, Yan-biao
• Yang, Hua-yong

Efficient energy source usage of solenoid valve by optimized pre-excitation control algorithm. The energy conversion mechanism between multiple physical fields of solenoid valve is revealed. Both faster dynamic and lower temperature rising of solenoid valve are realized simultaneously.

• High-speed solenoid valve;
• Power losses;
• Dynamic performance;
• Control parameters;
• Pre-excitation control

No Sources Found