Peter Emmerson

 1.5 The Problem of Power

Whilst making the case for using Elias’ approach with respect to my analysis of the way we use idealism in the search for certainty, I also want to question our use of the concept ‘power’. To me power is a variable more akin to physics and engineering than sociology: it tells us for example, about the ability of motors to do work. Human bodies do work and thus the notion of power could translate to an understanding of the activity of the body through bio-engineering: powerful bodies can do work very quickly. However, in the context of the latter, power is not that good a fit, as the complexity and dynamism of biological forms is not directly analogous to a motor. There is even less fit between power and human social webs. Instead of power I want to use the less mechanistic notion of ‘social influence‘ which I am familiar with in the context of social psychological models that analyse compliance, conformity and obedience. By replacing power with the notion of social influence I think we get a closer appreciation of the complexity and dynamism of processes such as domination, a better description of the pervasive and turbulent interdependencies of forces that are involved in human experience. Power suggests more capacity to make things happen than in fact we have. Social influence is more sensitive to an understanding of both human impotence and resistance.