The new concepts of power? Power-over, power-to and power-with
In: Journal of political power, Band 14, Heft 1, S. 51-71
ISSN: 2158-3803
In: Journal of political power, Band 14, Heft 1, S. 51-71
ISSN: 2158-3803
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 71, Heft 1, S. 3-19
ISSN: 1467-9248
There are two rival conceptions of power in modern sociopolitical thought. According to one, all social power reduces to power-over-others. According to another, the core notion is power-to-effect-outcomes, to which even power-over reduces. This article defends seven theses. First, agential social power consists in a relation between agent and outcomes (power-to). Second, not all social power reduces to power-over and, third, the contrary view stems from conflating power-over with a distinct notion: power-despite-resistance. Fourth, the widespread assumption that social power presupposes the capacity to overcome resistance is false: social power includes the capacity to effect outcomes with others' assistance. Fifth, power-with can be exercised via joint intentional action, strategic coordination and non-strategic coordination. Sixth, agential social power is best analysed as a capacity to effect outcomes, with the assistance of others, despite the resistance of yet others. Seventh, power-over and power-with are not mutually exclusive: each can ground the other.
In: Journal of political power, Band 5, Heft 1, S. 73-89
ISSN: 2158-3803
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 616, S. 110-124
ISSN: 1552-3349
This article pushes beyond hard power and soft power to insist on smart power, defined as the capacity of an actor to combine elements of hard power and soft power in ways that are mutually reinforcing such that the actor's purposes are advanced effectively and efficiently. It argues that advancing smart power has become a national security imperative, driven both by long-term structural changes in international conditions and by short-term failures of the current administration. The current debates over public diplomacy and soft power suffer from failures to address conceptual, institutional, and political dimensions of the challenge, three dimensions the author addresses in this article. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2008 The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]
In: Hamburger Forschungsberichte zur Sozialpsychologie (HaFoS), Band 63
"Macht ist häufig ein Kennzeichen sozialen Handelns. Deshalb ist es notwendig sich mit diesem Phänomen auch auf sozialpsychologischer Ebene auseinander zu setzen. Ziel dieses Artikels ist es den Leser zu sensibilisieren, sich der Komplexität dieses Alltagegriffes zu nähern. Durch eine Formalisierung soll diese Komplexität verdeutlicht werden. Diese Komplexität erklärt auch, warum das Phänomen Macht bisher keine umfassende psychologische Theorienbildung generiert hat.
Trotz dieser Schwierigkeiten fasst dieser Artikel wichtige Konzepte und Ergebnisse aus der psychologischen Forschung zusammen und ordnet sie Systemumfängen (Individual-, Mikro-, Meso-, Makosystem) als auch qualitativen Wirkmechanismen (affektiv, kognitiv und konativ) zu.
Somit wird eine Systematik gebildet, die veranschaulicht, in welchen Bereichen Forschungen bezüglich des sozialen Phänomens Macht ansetzen."[Autorenreferat]
In: Administration in social work, Band 9, Heft 2, S. 99-111
ISSN: 0364-3107
In: Monthly Review, Band 23, Heft 11, S. 50
ISSN: 0027-0520
In: Radical philosophy: a journal of socialist and feminist philosophy, Heft 166, S. 56-57
ISSN: 0300-211X
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 616, Heft 1, S. 110-124
ISSN: 1552-3349
This article pushes beyond hard power and soft power to insist on smart power, defined as the capacity of an actor to combine elements of hard power and soft power in ways that are mutually reinforcing such that the actor's purposes are advanced effectively and efficiently. It argues that advancing smart power has become a national security imperative, driven both by long-term structural changes in international conditions and by short-term failures of the current administration. The current debates over public diplomacy and soft power suffer from failures to address conceptual, institutional, and political dimensions of the challenge, three dimensions the author addresses in this article.
In: Journal of political power, Band 7, Heft 1, S. 107-126
ISSN: 2158-3803