UNDERSTANDING
CONFLICT
AND WAR: VOL. 2:
THE CONFLICT HELIX
Chapter 19
The Fundamental
Nature
Of Power*
By R.J.
Rummel
DEFINITIONS OF POWER
As a word
conveying meaning about a person, power is clearly understood. To say that Mary has power over John, Bill has power in the
church, or Jack is a powerful politician is to communicate. Moreover, we sense our own power, whether over physical nature
or other people. To send a spaceship to the moon or to carve a road through the Amazon is to manifest power over nature; to
be elected a senator or to rob a bank is to manifest power over others.
It is through the idea of power and its derivatives
and correlates such as force, influence, energy, control, strength, cause, pressure, authority, coercion, and insight that
we make intelligible the dynamics and momentary stabilities of society and nature. But yet, though power be so fundamental
and meaningful, attempts to agree upon its definition have failed.
Just focusing
on power as manifested in our interrelations, we find as many substantively different definitions as there ARE those writing
about it. Consider the following sample, selected from among the major works on power.
"Power may
be defined as the production of intended effects" [Russell, 1938,p.18].
"Power is the ability to employ force" [Bierstedt,
1950, p. 733].
"For the
assertion 'A has power over B.' we can substitute the assertion 'A's behavior causes B's behavior' " [Simon, 1957, p. 5].
"My intuitive
idea of power, then, is something like this: A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would
not otherwise do" [Dahl, 1957, p. 202].
The "power
of 0 over P with respect to a given change at a specified time equals the maximum strength of the resultant force which 0
can set up in that direction at that time. The strength of the resultant force on P is determined by the relative magnitudes
of the forces activated by 0 to 'comply' and to 'resist' " [Cartwright, 1959, p. 193].1
Power is
"the ability to satisfy one's wants through the control of preferences and/or opportunities" [Kuhn, 1963, p. 317].
Power is
"the processual relation between two parties modally characterized by (1) asymmetric influence, in which a perceptible probability
of decision rests in one of the two parties, even over the resistance of the other party; and (2) the predominance of negative
sanctions (threatened or actual) as a feature of behavior in the dominant party" [Schermerhorn, 1961, P. 12].
Power "is
the process of affecting policies of others with the help of (actual or threatened) severe deprivations for nonconformity
with the policies intended" [Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950, p. 76].2
Power: "its
inner reality, the thing without which it cannot be: that essence is command" [Jouvenal, 1962, p. 96].
"Power is
the ability to cause or prevent change" [May, 1972, p. 99].
So many
diverse views of power suggest a pervasive something, which like the fabled elephant and the blind men feeling different parts,
manifests itself in many different forms.3 Which form is apprehended clearly depends on the approach and purpose of a study.
Now, power
is a central concept in understanding the field; along with potentiality, disposition, and manifestation, it defines the reality
of our intentional field. Power is generic, and its species social power, and subspecies coercive, bargaining, and authoritative
power, are basic to understanding our social behavior and possibilities.
R.J.Rummel
observes that there are two types of power over other human beings.In understanding power directed intentionally towards others,
there is one primary consideration: is the power directed towards the other self or his body?
Power directed towards another
self is oriented towards the other's psychological field, perceptions, motivations, behavioral dispositions, interests or
intentions. So directed are advertising, propaganda, commands, threats, inducements, deception, promises and so on.
Power also
can be directed to another's body. This distinction between the self and body oriented powers is what divides two healing
professions: medicine and psychoanalysis. Medical doctors concerned with the body's health direct their powers towards its
well being; psychoanalysts concerned with the self use their powers to help another self integrate and direct its interests
and use its own powers.
======================================
Publication
Information: Book Title: Readings in Modern Political Analysis. Contributors: Robert A. Dahl - editor, Deane E. Neubauer -
editor. Publisher: Prentice-Hall. Place of Publication: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Publication Year: 1968.
Students
of politics often
disagree on
the methods of political analysis, they also disagree on its substance.
"Politics in Everyday Life", by
Lewis A. Froman, Jr., suggests that much
everyday behavior is political in nature. After defining politics as "the
distribution
of advantages and disadvantages among people with different
resources," Froman contends that in order to satisfy their
intensely held
preferences individuals and groups attempt to control and manipulate deci
sions not only in public
institutions but also in private life. From Froman's
point of view, differences between formal politics and informal politics
are
not so much differences of kind as of degree.
============================================
Book info:
Political
Analysis : Historical and Modern Perspectives/P.B. Rathod. Jaipur, ABD Pub., 2006, xii, 152 p., tables, $31. ISBN 81-8376-065-1.
Contents:
Foreword. Preface. 1. The genesis of modern political analysis. 2. The nature of modern political analysis. 3. Fact, value
and theory analysis. 4. G.A. Almond's analysis. 5. David Easton's analysis. 6. David Apter's analysis. 7. Karl W. Deutsch's
analysis. 8. E.A. Shils analysis. 9. G.A. Almond's analysis. 10. Robert A. Dahl's analysis. 11. Harold D. Lasswell's analysis.
Select bibliography. Index.
"This book has attempted at no more than a brief introduction to the conceptual framework of some contemporary political scientists.
It is hoped that the readers interest will be stimulated and satisfied and not killed. The works of leading political scientists
are discussed in this book. The book "Political Analysis" is equally important, and attempts at concept formation as well
as general discussions and critiques of contemporary approaches to the study of politics." (jacket)
========================================
On the Lighter Side!
Critique
of Robert A. Dahl's Modern Political Analysis:
The Stupidity
Theory of Politics
Avoid the 2008 Rush! Start Hating Politicians Now!
By Wayne McDonald
If x is the population of
the United States and y is the degree of imbecility of the average American, then democracy is the theory that x times y is
less than y.
H.L. Mencken
Of the thousands
of book, essays, treatises, and other such works devoted to the somewhat oxymoronic subject of political science; nowhere
within the resultant millions upon millions of pages will you find a more concise summary of the subject than with the 110-odd
pages of Robert Dahl's 1963 classic (and thus completely overlooked) Modern Political Analysis. On page 2 of this
remarkably readable book, Dahl poses six questions that he considers the most important to be answered by the study of political
science. These are (in order of appearance):
1. What
is politics and how do we distinguish politics from other aspects of human life?
2. What
do political systems have in common and in what ways do they differ?
3. What
is the definition and role of power and authority within political systems?
4. How do
men (and women) behave in political systems?
5. What
conditions make for stability, change, or revolution in political systems? What is required if peace is to be maintained and
violence avoided? What are the prerequisites for a stable democracy to be maintained?
6. What
sort of political system is best and how should we evaluate political systems?
Dr. Dahl's
book, written in the days before the awareness that stupidity is one of the fundamental forces of nature, does not take into
account the influence of stupid people (or their intangible product, stupid ideas) on political systems.
1. What
is politics and how do we distinguish politics from other aspects of human life?
Dahl considered
the definition of politics and political systems to be of such importance that he made the following statement the first paragraph
of the first chapter of Modern Political Analysis:
"Whether
he likes it or not, virtually no one is completely beyond the reach of some kind of political system...Politics is one of
the unavoidable facts of human existence."
Dahl, having
written this during what many stupidologists consider to be the intellectual equivalence of the Dark Ages, never attempted
to discuss the impact that stupidity has had on politics and, vice versa, that politics can be seen as the cumulative product
of generation after generation of stupidity.
Stupidology
teaches that, since a political system arises from the will of the body politic (the will of the citizens) and that, since
stupidity increases geometrically (it multiplies) while intelligence can only grow arithmetically (by addition), political
systems that are based on majority rule are inherently stupid!
2. What
do political systems have in common and in what ways do they differ?
Any political
system arises from stupidity, be it a democracy that arises from the combined stupidity of the majority, or a dictatorship
that depends on the combined stupidity of the majority to support the clown at the top of the pyramid.
The differences
in political systems can also be explained by the principles of Stupidology.
Recall HL
Mencken's observation that "If x is the population of the United States and y is the degree of imbecility of the average American,
then democracy is the theory that x times y is less than y." Here we have mathematical proof of stupidity as the foundation
of one of the "World's great democracies!"
Even the
greatest of all stupid political systems, Communism, was built upon the proposition that if the workers (by means of their
proxy, the state) were placed in charge of everything then the workers would act in a manner that would ultimately be for
the betterment of all. And, since the state was really acting on behalf of the workers, the state could do no wrong since
everyone was looking out for his fellow worker. What Communism became, in practice, was where the state did what it damned
well pleased and was able to do so because the workers were too stupid to know the difference (or at least smart enough to
keep their mouths shut if they did).
3. What
is the definition and role of power and authority within political systems?
The definition
of power, in any political system, is the ability to tell someone else what to do or not to do. The more people that will
do as you tell them to do, the more power you have. As Frank Dane noted "Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected
to anything."
The same
is true with authority, which is the extent that the citizens believe that you have a basis for your actions that arises from
some legal authority. The problem is that legal documents such as laws, bylaws, in laws, outlaws, and afterthoughts do not
just pop into existence out of thin air. In other words, they must be created. And who creates the laws? These of course are
the ones with the power to do so, our elected officials. Remember what Frank Dane said? From the above paragraph, we can easily
see that authority has its origins in stupidity as well.
4. How do
men (and women) behave in political systems?
Badly, if
not overtly feloniously.
5. What
conditions make for stability, change, or revolution in political systems? What is required if peace is to be maintained and
violence avoided? What are the prerequisites for a stable democracy to be maintained?
The stability
of political systems arises from the collective stupidity of the people that the system controls while change can only arise
from a greater amount of stupidity displacing stupidity of a lesser quantity. Revolutions occur within governmental and political
systems when the amount of stupidity present at the highest point within the system becomes so great that it threatens to
crush everything below it. At this point a group of people will rise up in anger and the old stupidity will then be replaced
by a new class of stupidity that frequently is confused with a good idea, even by the intelligent members of the population,
who in turn find themselves the first to be blamed (and subsequently imprisoned or executed) when the new stupidity turns
out to be just as bad, if not worse than, the older stupidity.
As to what
is required for a stable democracy there are two schools of thought, the literal and the stupid.
The literal
theory of a stable democracy involves locating a stable of horses and, after careful analysis, picking the right horse's ass
to run the show until a new horse's ass is required.
The stupid
theory of a stable democracy requires only that stupidity be evenly distributed throughout a state, country, or whatever area
is under consideration. This even distribution of stupidity will practically guarantee that no concentration of intelligence
of sufficient size will ever congregate long enough to displace the stupidity of the current government.
6. What
sort of political system is best and how should we evaluate political systems?
The best
political system is, like the law, whatever the presiding judge says it is. Sadly, the citizens are the jury and are usually
left to their own devices when it comes to reading the judge's mind. And, again recalling the triumph of the geometric progression
of stupidity over the additive property of intelligence, we can only arrive at stupid conclusions as to the merits of any
political system. There is always the possibility that, due to random chance, that a group of intelligent people could find
themselves in positions of power. This, of course, will never happen simply because politics is the only creation of mankind
which requires stupidity in the same manner that a houseplant requires sunlight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 © Associated
Content, All rights reserved.
Want more
humour??? Click here:http://associatedcontent.com
