Theories of Power Essay ⋆ Sociology Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This Theories of Power Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

In contemporary sociology, the term power is used in two distinct but interrelated ways. In the broadest usage power refers to a structural capacity for an actor A to cause any change in the behavior of another actor B. This meaning of power captures the potential for power to be exercised or not in social interaction. The second meaning refers to a concrete event in which one individual benefits at the expense of another. Modern theorists refer to such events as power use or power exercise. Importantly, both meanings imply that power is a relational phenomenon. Thus, theories of power focus on the relationship between two or more actors, and not the characteristics of actors themselves. Although the terms are sometimes conflated, power is distinct from other relational concepts such as influence (which is voluntarily accepted), force (wherein the target has no choice but to comply), and authority (which involves a request from a legitimate social position).

Perhaps the first formal theory of power was proposed by Thibaut and Kelley in The Social Psychology of Groups (1959). They asserted that individuals evaluate their current relationship against some standard, or comparison level (CL). The theory also claims that actors assess the attractiveness of a relationship by comparing their focal relationship to benefits expected from others (CLALT). The power of actor A over B is defined as ”A’s ability to affect the quality of outcomes attained by B.” There are two ways that this can occur. Fate control exists when actor A affects actor B’s outcome by changing her/his own behavior, independent of B’s action. Behavior control exists when the rewards obtained by B are a function of both A and B’s behavior. In either case, whether A has fate control or behavior control, B is dependent on A for rewards and thus A has a source of power over B.

A major theoretical shift occurred in the early 1970s, with the development of Richard Emerson’s Power Dependence Theory (Emerson 1972a; 1972b). Emerson put forward the notion that relations between actors are part of a larger set of potential exchange relations, i.e., an exchange network. Thus, in analyzing a dyad, he asserted that it is important to consider its broader connection to other dyads — the larger network in which it is embedded. Emerson considered two kinds of connection. A negative connection exists when interaction in one dyad reduces interaction in another. A positive connection exists when interaction in one dyad promotes interaction in another. The attention to dyadic connectedness gave Emerson’s theorizing a decidedly structural theme.

Power Dependence Theory claims that power emerges when some individuals are more dependent than others for the exchange of valued goods. Fomally, the theory asserts that the power of actor A over actor B is equal to the dependence of B on A, summarized by the equation PAB = DBA.

In turn, dependence is a function of two key factors: the availability of alternative exchange relations, and the extent to which the actors value those relations. Since the original formulation Power Dependence Theory has given rise to numerous other branches of theory. For instance, Molm (1990) has expanded the power dependence framework to include both reward-based power and punishment-based power. Lawler (1992) has developed a theory of power that includes both dependence-based power and punitive-based power. Both lines of work affirm the importance of dependence in generating power.

An alternative approach to power is found in David Willer’s Elementary Theory, which anchors power in the ability of some actors to exclude others from valued goods. The theory identifies three kinds of social relations — conflict, coercion, and exchange — defined by the value of the sanctions transmitted in each. Within exchange the theory identifies three kinds of power structures. Strong power structures are those that only contain two kinds of positions: high-power positions that can never be excluded and two or more low-power positions, one of which must always be excluded. The classic example is the three-person dating network in which B has two potential partners while either A or C must be excluded. Equal power networks contain only one set of structurally identical positions, such as dyads or triangles. In weak power networks no position is necessarily excluded, but some may be. At the heart of the theory is a resistance model that relates the distribution of profit when two actors exchange to the benefits lost when they do not. Tests find that the resistance model predicts power exercise in a range of settings.

Bibliography:

Emerson, R. (1972a) Exchange theory, part I: a psychological basis for social exchange. In: Berger, J., Zelditch, M., & Anderson, B. (eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress, vol 2. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA, pp. 38—57.
Emerson, R. (1972b) Exchange theory, part II: exchange relations and networks. In Berger, J., Zelditch, M., & Anderson, B. (eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress, vol. 2. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA, pp. 58—87.
Lawler, E. J. (1992) Power processes in bargaining. Sociological Quarterly 33: 17—34.
Molm, (1990) Structure, action and outcomes: the dynamics of power in social exchange. American Sociological Review 55: 427—47.
Willer, (ed.) (1999) Network Exchange Theory. Praeger, London.