Power can be attributed to the basic components of the human agency. The lack of power illustrates the lack of authority to act as human agents. In western social theory, power has been approached differently to yield valuable and diverse insights. Theorists of power have invoked the expression of ‘power over and power to’ in their distinction within the term power. Even though ‘power to’ has become the base of the model in the natural and physical sciences, ‘power over’ is used for highlighting issues of communal control, conflict, and compulsion that has been the major aim of Western political and social sciences. In line with this, this paper discusses how states, communities, and people exercise power. It also outlines how religious and political beliefs shape the exercise of power.
The extent to which the Western political and social theory develops is within the boundaries; such a model is seen in the American society power debate in the middle of the 20th century. ‘Power over’ may be exercised in different delicate ways that can include the enlistment of biases within a political and societal system in a way that curbs some individuals or group from the advancement of their personal self-identified interest. Furthermore, power can be exercised where an individual has devoted energy to reinforce or create the political and social value that can limit the scope of the political process[1]. ‘Power over’ may also be exercised to prevent people from identifying and recognizing their personal interests.
Power can also be defined as transformative capacity or a capacity for achieving outcomes. It is observable that power is not essentially connected with disagreement as it is not intrinsically cruel. Power is present in the collaboration among equals, and when unevenly distributed, it expresses forms that are not oppressive. Additionally, feminism embodies diverse currents of thought that accommodate the internal differences of the perspective. Critics derived to facilitate the normalization of competitive and aggressive behaviors in the Western society have a given structure that is meant for male privilege. It occurred during the substantial dominance of women by most men[2]. Besides that, it places women at a corporal drawback to men as it occurs when aggressive power struggles are observed to be foreseeable words of the human nature.
To overt the physical domination, the paradigm power is serving as a more delicate arrangement of the male privilege. Some institution all over the world; the political institutions, educational systems, and the judicial systems have been observed to favor the more masculine traits over the feminine traits, for instance, cooperation and care. When women do not adapt to the competitive and aggressive attitudes, it means that they have not historically obtained the equivalent rewards for equal behavior. Severally, male expressions of competition and aggression have been rewarded as appropriate and natural. The female expressions of competitiveness and aggression are never rewarded since they are viewed to be inappropriate.
Beyond the disadvantages that females undergo in their practice through the structures of male privilege, many of the women have expressed concern with regards to the masculine traits over the feminine qualities. Moreover, women have placed enormous powers in their original roles to foster an increasing inequality as they have found empowering being a state that is valuable and gratifies activity. Several system theorists articulate the theory of power to be outstandingly comparable to the feminist theory. It is derivative from the relational complexities so as to characterize the study of the dynamic systems. The systems theory fundamentally differentiates the complex systems, for instance, ecological, biological, and social power that have functional and structural similarities[3]. The multifaceted systems are characterized by the developing properties that do not characterize any of their component parts in isolation. Therefore, the complex dynamics are understood as functional unities as they are capable of performing various tasks that cannot be performed by the subsystems or components solely.
Human societies are also understood to be functional unities in the western social systems. Many of the conventional theories argue that the western culture in their political, social, and economic systems is greatly dysfunctional due to their ecological, social injustices. Many of the critical functionalists have conclusions that the contemporary and the liberal social systems have been affected by the lack of justice. The interrogative theory of power explains the capacity of building relations in organizations in creating groups and families to inspire loyalty and develop legitimacy. The adversarial power relationships have become anachronistic in the social evolution of human beings whereby, Sectarianism, militarism, nationalism, competitive materialism and racism have reflections of failure in adapting to changes in historical conditions.
In addition, considering the way system theories and feminist point out, the understanding power in terms of domination is reluctant in providing the adequate basis for the political and social theory. Looking at power as the domination, the paradigm serves as a vital investigative function. The difference between ‘power to’ and ‘power over’ is extensively used in denoting major error lines among the authority theorists. When formulating the scheme, it is recognizable that the categories of control against ‘power over’ are neither mutually exclusive nor categorically parallel. It denotes power to be capacity. ‘Power over’ is understood as the power of exerting control over others. To enhance a comprehensive scheme of power relations, it first begins with understanding that ‘power over’ is precisely observed as a subcategory of the general concept.
Systems and feminist models consider other kindred of power that does not involve exercising power over others. With the use of such models, power equality and power inequality have mutual relations. Agents who cooperate in their work are characterized by unequal or equal allotment of power. Hierarchy is also assumed to be an attractive form of disparity on some given situation. In a communal context, the hierarchy is used to refer to the unequal structure power relations[4]. However, many individuals have equated hierarchy with oppression. When a cluster of the populace is large to manage efficiently, each member in the decision-making process benefits from the delegation of power to smaller sub-groups. The scheme illustrates that the hierarchy does not automatically get equated with oppressions as the hierarchy is never by design equated to empowerment.
The adverbial or competitive power relations are common to the contemporary society. Hierarchy does not lead to exploitation, oppression, or other unidentifiable outcomes. The power scheme shows negative and positive dimensions of power in inequality. It cautions that the pecking order does not get routinely equated with empowerment. Besides, power is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon. On the divergent ways of talking and thinking, the scheme outlines the significant vocabulary that distinguishes between distributive and relational dimensions in power. Talking and thinking are influenced by the ways acted in relation to the current subject with significant implications meant for social practice.
Based on the practical implications, the one-dimensional understanding of the western liberal theorists assumes the ultimate forms of the social association harness. The western liberal societies encompass prearranged concepts of their type of systems as supporter contest. Their justice systems contest for lawful advocacy, consumption, and economic material production as a context of intellectual achievement that is reinforced by most recreational activities for physical or mental performance. The cultural contest is naturalized to make it difficult for most individuals not to indulge in alternative models of social organization. The steadily growing extremes of ecological and social sustainability are of the culture contest[5].
Looking for women in power, any political parties that utilize the best of its members with the inclusion of women are the most successful since they are easy to mobilize. Women are capable of serving as catalysts for change by the utilization of their unique talents and perspectives on behalf of other women[6]. In larger parts of the societies, women are assumed to be less corrupt as compared to men. Also, they have the advantage of better social relations inside the communities and do have the greater awareness of the public voice. With much wisdom and knowledge, women can assist in developing and identifying policy with a good and targeting party message. They can also be supportive in recruiting and nominating the electoral candidates. Considering the different parties that are present in a country, women are perfect in establishing reliable support groups for such political parties.
Additionally, women contribute to parties by managing campaigns and coaching men who are party members on efficient ways that they should be communicating to women in the society. Also, they can organize a women coalition party[7]. They also act as planners and strategists, organize the local meetings, serve as public speakers, and can act as volunteers in new parties. Women can organize with parties by mobilization through the help of forums that discuss women challenges for participation. They are also used in organizing grassroots activities that educate women about political rights at hand. The mobilization trains other women to be good candidates for public offices while establishing networks that support women elected to office. The women ‘wing’ has its mission, vision, project, and targets.
The meaningful participation of women has affected both types of solutions proposed and the range of policy issues. Women are critically present in politics with the representation of the female gender and the rest of marginalized individuals. More women are going for leadership positions with corollary augment in policymaking priorities. Women in political power have profound democratic and positive impacts on legislatures, communities, and citizen lives. Women lawmakers have displayed admirable characteristics of leadership on several social issues, most of which are the roles they traditionally played; as caregivers in their communities. They are therefore perceived sensitive to matters that affect the community. Several women have committed to post-conflict and peacebuilding reconstruction with powerful perspective for good leadership power.
Women have been suffering silently during armed conflicts, they are now advocating for reconstruction, stabilization, and better governance to have a chance for long-term success. To achieve sustainable peace, it requires a transformation of power. Women in the law making field have been perceived, to be honest as compared to men. They have qualities that encourage representative and democratic institutions[8]. Women who are in leadership experience high standards of achievement with admirable development in infrastructure, education, and health structures. Despite the strong resistance from men, women are still responsible for forming strong laws with regards to controversial issues such as food security and land rights.
In conclusion, power triggers a lot of conflicts in the society at times, although much of the authority in power belongs to a collective group or an individual. However, this is not necessarily always the case; it is basically meant to presuppose any of form of resistance. In most cases, resistance is the way to obedience and comes out naturally given that every individual always tries to exude some power over another person. Additionally, the connectivity and oppression of the rules make it productive and development-oriented[9]. As such, power can be good, evil, routine, and diabolic. It can be the undivided part basically of the social interaction which is an integral future of social life. It often acts as part of the relations as it has the mandate of signing to levels of interaction.
Bibliographies
Burgess, Glyn S., and Keith Busby. “Trans. The Lais of Marie de France.” (1999).
Carnotensis, Fulcherius. “Fulcher of Chartres.” Viator 35 (2004): 131-68.
Scott, James C. The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press, 2009
Stearns, Peter N. World history in documents: A comparative reader. NYU Press, 2008
[1]James Scott, The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia (Yale University Press, 2009):44
[2] Peter N. Stearns, World history in documents: A comparative reader (NYU Press, 2008): 95
[3] Stearns, 84
[4] Stearns, 115
[5] Fulcherius Carnotensis, “Fulcher of Chartres”, Viator 35 (2004):151-152
[6] Stearns, 91
[7] Glyn Burgess and Keith Busby, “Trans: The Lais of Marie de France.” (1999): 18
[8] Stearns, 97
[9] Scot, 48