#coercive power

[origsmocs]

Hey so uh, I accidentally deleted my original post of this but here it is a second time.

Coercive power, a Bionicle fanwork by me.

This short story asks the question of “What would it be like if Toa Takanuva appeared much earlier in the timeline, before the events of Legends of Metru Nui.”

Coercive Power

Coercive Power; a Bionicle fanwork by Origulator. A version of Takanuva, in an alternative universe where he was transformed much earlier in

[omegaphilosophia]

Types of Power

Power can manifest in various forms, each influencing individuals and societies in distinct ways. Here are some different types of power:

Coercive Power: Coercive power involves the ability to force compliance or obedience through threats, punishment, or use of force. It relies on fear of negative consequences and is often associated with authoritarian regimes, law enforcement, or military institutions.

Reward Power: Reward power stems from the ability to provide incentives, rewards, or benefits in exchange for compliance or desired behavior. It can involve material rewards such as money, promotions, or privileges, as well as social rewards like praise or recognition.

Legitimate Power: Legitimate power is based on recognized authority, formal roles, or institutional positions within society. It derives from social norms, traditions, or legal structures that confer authority to certain individuals or institutions, such as elected officials, government leaders, or religious figures.

Referent Power: Referent power arises from the attractiveness, charisma, or perceived likability of an individual or group. It is rooted in admiration, identification, or emotional connection with a person or group, leading others to voluntarily align with their values, beliefs, or goals.

Expert Power: Expert power comes from possessing specialized knowledge, skills, or expertise in a particular domain. Individuals or groups with expert power are perceived as credible, trustworthy, and competent, enabling them to influence others through their expertise and insights.

Informational Power: Informational power derives from controlling access to valuable information or resources. Those who possess information that others need or desire can wield influence by selectively sharing or withholding information, shaping perceptions, or guiding decision-making processes.

Connection Power: Connection power is based on social networks, relationships, or alliances with influential individuals or groups. Those who have extensive social connections, networks, or alliances can leverage their relationships to access resources, opportunities, or support, enhancing their influence and status.

Resource Power: Resource power involves control or ownership of valuable resources, assets, or material wealth. Individuals, organizations, or institutions that possess significant resources, such as financial capital, land, or technology, have the ability to influence others through control over vital resources.

Symbolic Power: Symbolic power arises from the ability to shape meanings, values, or cultural norms within society. It is associated with influential figures, institutions, or ideologies that shape collective beliefs, identities, or symbols, influencing how individuals perceive themselves and their social reality.

Relational Power: Relational power emerges from interpersonal relationships, dynamics, or interactions between individuals or groups. It involves the ability to negotiate, persuade, or influence others through communication, trust-building, or emotional connections within social contexts.

These different types of power interact and intersect in complex ways, shaping social hierarchies, organizational dynamics, and individual behaviors within societies.

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/the-gravediggers-of-bucha/

The Gravediggers Of Bucha

Three men meet daily to bury the dead in Bucha, Ukraine. No one pays them.  They perform their task in the name of humanity. They’ve been at their work for many months, even during a period of Russian occupation. Glad to be free of the gruesome task, the invaders tolerated the men’s presence.  Digging graves isn’t their regular job. One was a pizza chef before the war.  The second worked in construction.  The third is a retired football player.  Before the Russians arrived, their paths never crossed.  But the fires of war brought them together. Faced with the sight of charred bodies, they knew what they had to do, and so. they turned their hands to gravedigging.  Fortunately, it was a vocation that required no training, only a strong back, and a shovel.   The continuing horror around them has tempered their friendship. Today, they call themselves “brothers.” That bond is their reward–a lily rising from a dung heap. I cite the story because it is an example of soft power. Soft power is the strength people cling to in their darkest hours. Its source is a set of shared values that give society cohesion and hope. Ukrainians share a desire to rid themselves of an invader.  That alone allows them to look beyond the present and toward the future.  In contrast, the Russian invaders use military coercion to obtain their objectives. Over time, solidarity usually wins over might. Daniel W. Dezner, writing in Foreign Affairs, notes that a shared outlook affects a country’s prospects. (The Perils of Pessimism, by Daniel W. Dezner, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2022, pgs. 34-43.)   Citizens who look to the future with anticipation will forgo demands for immediate outcomes because they believe conditions will improve.  Two factors reflect that expectation: a robust birthrate and minimal migration. (Ibid, pg. 36.)  When the future looks dim, these same citizens will demand immediate rewards, making it difficult for leaders to consider long-range plans. A flexing of military might will substitute for genuine strength.  The extent to which greater powers are optimistic or pessimistic about the future has profound effects on their present-day strategies. (Ibid, pg. 38.) Two factors reflect how a nation sees itself: its robust birthrate and minimal migration. (Ibid, pg. 36.)  So, where does the United States stand within the spectrum of hope and might?  The public already has spoken. A majority believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. (Ibid, pg. 41.)  Says Dezner, Donald Trump as the 45th President accelerated the nation’s anxiety. He spewed fear about our need to protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. (Ibid, pg. 41.). Those isolationist views weakened ties with our allies abroad.   In contrast, says Dezner, Biden’s support for the Ukraine war was a game-changer. Rich in political experience, Biden relied on soft power to repair the damage his predecessor inflicted upon the nation’s reputation.  Quick to revitalize trust among our allies, he was able to upend Russia’s assumption that America’s foreign influence was weak and that a peremptory strike against Ukraine would succeed.  Denzer insists Biden’s choice of soft power has strength[ed] the liberal international order.  If we accept the author’s markers as a measure of the country’s condition, we appear to have a healthy core. Though Covid may have affected the numbers, U. S. immigration figures continue to be greater than the numbers for those who migrate –another form of population growth.   What’s more, the economy remains strong despite inflation. An added plus is that when Biden restored America’s hegemony, he strengthened democracies across the globe. Voters who continue to feel the country is headed in the wrong direction should look again.  We have every reason to anticipate the future. Our cultural war is frightening, but our institutions have withstood the blows.  The Constitution survived an insurrection. We discovered that many people to the right and left politically share a common value.  They put loyalty to their country above personal ambition. This behavior helps restore our trust and reinforces our values.   The nation’s struggles are far from over, but its resilience justifies our dedication to its future.  Like the gravediggers of Bucha, we have reasons to keep our faith in our democracy and use the present to secure the future.   

[organizationalbehavior101]

Types of Interpersonal Power: Harry Potter vs Voldemort

You can’t have a complete series of fictional concept analysis posts without involving Harry Potter, right?... right? Anyway... 

It goes without saying that power is a pretty big concept in the book/movie series. The main antagonist alone, Voldemort, is practically obsessed with power. Today lets look at Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort and what types of power they hold throughout the series. 

Before we start, I want to list the 5 types of power: Reward, Coercive, Referent, Legitimate, and Expert

Harry Potter

Harry Potter, the “Boy Who Lived”, has reverent power simply from his past alone. Beginning in the first book, he had strangers looking up to and admiring him for “killing the dark lord” when he was just a baby, and only coming out of it with a scar on his head. As the books progress, Harry’s referent power remains through the entire series, although it gradually becomes more due to his own character and ability rather than what happened when he was a baby. 

Lord Voldemort

In some respects, as the leader of the death eaters, Voldemort holds legitimate power. However, if you actually see how his own followers act around him, his power is LARGELY coercive more than anything. He threatens his own followers frequently and stresses that they will die unless they follow him. Were it not for his coercive power, he never would have created such a disaster as he did in the series. 

[thinktheology]

The King is Dead (Follow Me - Part 74)

The King is Dead (Follow Me – Part 74)

Mark 15:33-41 The Death of Jesus

The previous passage takes place between 9 AM and 12 noon. It is now high noon (v. 33) and it’s dark for three solid hours(until the moment of Jesus’ death) – a symbol of God’s judgment (Amos 8:9) and eschatological fulfillment (cf. Amos 5:18). At 3 PM the silence is broken (as the darkness is lifted) with a loud cry from Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1 in his mother…

View On WordPress

[uniteordie-usa]

The US Government Claims Ownership Over Everything, Even Our Lives

http://uniteordiemedia.com/the-us-government-claims-ownership-over-everything-even-our-lives/ http://uniteordiemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Declaration_independence_Deplorables-600x397.jpg The US Government Claims Ownership Over Everything, Even Our Lives “To those who say the institution of inviolate private property still exists in the US, what asset can the US government not seize?”

“As ye sow…” by Robert Gore

The United States’ founding documents pay tribute to individual rights and private properly. Some of the founders may have thought they were establishing a government subordinated to protection of individual rights, which would have been an historical first. However, none thought such a government would be easy to maintain, and their fears were borne out.

The US government places prominently on the inglorious list of governments claiming ownership over everything within their dominion, defined as any place where they can exercise their coercive power.

To those who say the institution of inviolate private property still exists in the US, what asset can the US government not seize? The income tax gives it first claim on income. No real estate is exempt from eminent domain. Intellectual property claims are at the sufferance of the patent, trademark, and copyright authorities. Financial assets held within the banking system can be “bailed in,” and plans are afoot to ban cash. The already extensive range of assets subjected to civil asset forfeiture continues to expand. More ominously, assets can be seized from parties never adjudicated guilty. Conscription grants to the government the lives of the conscripted. The US government is no exception to the general rule, nothing is inviolate expect perhaps a person’s thoughts, and undoubtedly it’s working on that.

Individuals who assert the right to initiate aggression against whomever they choose are philosophically unhinged, candidates for an asylum or a penitentiary. Rejecting the first principle that must guide human interaction—that no one may rightfully initiate force against another person—such individuals have no rational foundation for their thoughts or actions. The “garbage in” of their philosophical premises produces “garbage out” emotional states, mental processes, and ultimately, lives. Having abandoned reason for coercion and violence, reality becomes a chaotic, incomprehensible void.

Governments’ coercive power allow them to take: might makes right. A philosophy that recognized a right of some individuals to steal from others fails on first principles; there is no logical distinction possible between the privileged and the subjugated. Does the aggregation of individuals into a unit which calling itself a government give them a right which none of them have individually? One could say that the aggregate was for the protection of its constituents’ persons, property, and rights, but a government so limited is acting as their constituents’ subordinate agent, exercising and enhancing their right of self-defense. Efforts have been made, notably the American experiment, but no government has ever been restricted in this manner.

Read More: straightlinelogic.com/2017/02/11/as-ye-sow-by-robert-gore/

[gravitascivics]

SO YOU’RE NOT A NAIL

I want to continue the topic I introduced in my last posting: power-coercive change strategies. Basically, this type of change is a type that depends on subjects doing what someone, a change agent, wants them to do in order to avoid experiencing a punishment.[1]  This punishment can take the form of a physical, financial, emotional, reputational, or other type of harm.  As I indicated toward the end of the last posting, this effort will look at more specific power-coercive strategies.  They are non-violent, political power, and Marxian approaches.

 Those change strategies that are referred to as non-violent have a rich history over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.  We first encounter the idea of non-violent change strategy in the writings of Henry David Thoreau in the mid-1800s. But its first application can be noted in the work of Mahatma Gandhi as he led the movement that eventually broke the imperial hold that Great Britain had over India.  That movement finally secured India’s independence in 1947.  Since then, here in the US, the civil rights movement, under the leadership of Martin Luther King, applied many of the strategies inspired by Gandhi in the 1950s and ‘60s.

 There are two prerequisites to this approach: one, the conditions that are to be changed need to be seen as unjust or extremely unfair by significant numbers within the relevant population and, two, the groups or organizations (private or public) in which change is sought have to be susceptible to some loss which is also, in some way, accessible to the change faction who can use it as leverage. So, in the case of the early civil rights movement, a bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama proved effective in giving the movement a much needed symbolic victory and was first to put into prominence a young King who was elevated to lead the protest.[2]  If the goal is simply to implement a change – change agents satisfied with a change that might not be accepted emotionally by those who have to live with the change – then a power-coercive strategy is good enough.  But if the change advocates depend on a moral value rationale for their efforts, they might also want those subjected by the change to have a change of heart.  They might want to create a collaborative relationship with the subjects.  If so, then power-coercive will not be enough. Initial change will then have to be followed up with a normative-re-educative strategy (the subject of my next posting).

 The second type of power-coercive strategy is the political power approach.  Political power strategies are those that are administered by those in authority.  Let us assume, for the purposes of just looking at the dynamics of this type of strategy, that the change agent is someone in authority and that authority is accepted as legitimate.  Here, the punishment element can take on several guises. They can be sanctions, fines, loss of monetary rewards such as grant moneys, or even imprisonment.  But these types of changes are usually not so clean and simple.  Usually, if the change is significant, provocative, and/or multidimensional, then follow up is needed.  For example, such a change might need training so that the subject will have the skills to implement and perform the change to satisfactory levels.  In those cases, it is not just a matter of some underling verbally agreeing to do something differently, but having to engage in time consuming and unpleasant activities in order to learn a skill or otherwise arrange for restructuring or some other movement of personnel.  If one adds reluctance of any kind on the part of the subject, one is considering a costly transitional process.  This is not only costly, but dependent on a certain level of willing cooperation.  Again, one is probably talking about instituting a normative-re-educative addition to the initial change process.

 The third strategy type one can consider under the power-coercive category is the Marxian approach.  This approach presupposes that in the location in which the change is sought, there exists an established intellectual “field.”  That is, those involved are under the view promulgated by those in charge, the elites.  This field is controlled by class-based elites (it might be elites who are defined as being ethnic, gender, nationality, age, or sexual preference based).  In controlling the field, the elites define the parameters of the field.  They determine what is legitimate or not.  Marxian aim is to change this very reality; i.e., the effort is to fundamentally inflict a social change so that those who are being abused by the existing order will adopt a new class (ethnic, gender, nationality, age, or sexual preference) consciousness.  I wrote of this process of change in earlier postings when I described and explained the basic argument of Paulo Freire in his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.[3]  Those who advocate this strategy speak of holding, through this type of consciousness change, truer democratic values.  Whatever it is considered, one would augment the implementation of changed policy in which a heavy dose of normative-re-educative efforts to engender the type of consciousness which is being sought.[4]

 As you can detect, when we talk about any extensive plan of change, a coercive form of power seems to fall short.  In each of these three more specific approaches, change, in order to be meaningful and lasting, needs to be supplemented by normative-re-educative processes.  My next posting will take a close look at this other type of change.

[1] Based on the theoretical work:  Chin, R. and Benne, K. D.  (1985). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems.  In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin (Eds.), The Planning of Change (pp. 22-45).  New York, NY:  Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

 [2] Actual change in the bus service that had discriminated against African-Americans was accomplished by a Supreme Court decision that ordered the desegregation of the Montgomery buses.

[3] See blog posting, Teaching Aim of Critical Pedagogy, May 11, 2011.  Available upon request.

 [4] This type of “education” is not as heavy-handed as it might sound.  You are encouraged to look at Freire’s approach to education to see what is being considered.  This is not to say that in countries where Marxists have taken power that they have not used drastic and very authoritarian modes of re-education.

[gravitascivics]

THE STAGE FOR THE POWER-COERCIVE

Here goes, as promised in my last posting, a few (or more) words on a general strategy type of change known as power-coercive.[1]  Generally, these strategies are based on avoiding what is anticipated as painful or disagreeable; that is, a set of change strategies in organizational operations – be it in terms of goals/aims or processes – that are deliberate and conscious.  These changes are on the part of a party related or associated with an organizational entity and motivated by an understanding that not to change will resort in enduring some pain or disagreeable consequence.  These changes are spearheaded by a person or group.  They are in a position to administer some sort of punishment if the party does not get the change it wants and, therefore, the strategy can be called a power-coercive strategy.  I billed this type of strategy as one that promises to be efficient in instituting a desired change.  By efficient, I mean the change will be effective in a relatively short amount of time with minimal costs.  I will explain that this billing is true only if certain conditions are met.

 In the last posting, I reviewed what is commonly called empirical-rational strategies and that set of strategies is seen as fairly quick and efficient, but it does not hold a candle to what is anticipated with the use of power-coercive strategies.  This is true if those wanting to institute change enjoy a relatively powerful position within or over the organization in question.  If they don’t, then the use of such a change strategy is possible, but it will not be as quick and efficient and might, as a matter of fact, take a significant amount of time.  

 When the change is by the powerful, though, they have resources that do make a difference.  Why?  Because power-coercive strategies rely on what I have termed, along with French and Raven,[2] coercive power.  That is, power – an ability to get someone to do something that they would not otherwise do – is based on the belief that those implementing the power can and will administer some sort of punishment to the subjected party if the subjected party does not comply with what the would-be power wielder wants done. It is the sort of power one usually thinks of when the term power is used.  You get someone to do something because not doing it will result in that someone experiencing a consequence that is unpleasant or even worse.  You’ve seen untold number of movies in which such power is central to the plot line.  The Godfather trilogy comes to mind.  But does power have to rely on punishment?  Let’s read on.

 In the realm of change: power-coercive strategies rely on the more powerful agents exerting their wishes on the less powerful.  In real life, not the movies, exertion of power-coercive strategies takes place without guns and sinister sneers; they are usually expressions or implementations of legitimate authority. That is, the person or group seeking the change has the authority, due to organizational positioning or ascribed positioning by law, to exert the “commands” that would institute the change. I should add that such power is usually exerted to maintain what is, the status quo, instead of trying to institute change.  

 But when it is change that is sought, such change efforts by those in legitimate power positions are taken when a new set of authority figures takes hold of an organization such as a corporation or a governmental department or other bureaucratic entity. Sometimes those in power want to institute a new direction that calls on a certain level of change.  Whether change is emanating from a change in administration (usually with the election or the selection of a new president, governor, or CEO) or a change in strategy by those already in power, such changes are deemed legitimate due to the legitimacy of the power positions of those seeking change.  Even in such cases, what is in existence, the ongoing set of realities, is usually very well entrenched.  So change promises to be difficult.  It helps to have authority on one’s side and using authority, relying on power-coercive strategies, usually can result ostensibly on implementing the desired change, at least on paper.  By on paper, what is usually meant is that the structural and verbal commitments upon which the change relies can be put in place in a relatively short amount of time. The problem is in the ensuing performance by those who have to carry out the change.  If the change objectives are not really shared by this corps of workers, change, even with authority on the side of the “changers,” can prove to be elusive.

 But before I address these types of consequences, let me fill in more of the details entailed with the power-coercive set of changes.  First, there are modes of change for such coercive moves.  These are generally of two types:  political and economic modes.  Political modes encompass the necessary policy changes that support the operational changes that the change advocates desire.  This is dependent on the procedural apparatus the organizational or governmental entity has in place and the politicking in which both the advocates of change and those who oppose the change(s) engage.  This process is deserving of its own analysis – rest assured, such questions have their own literature of research that one can review. But, whatever the result, assuming both sides follow accepted procedures of politicking, the results of the conflict will be accepted, at least verbally.  And then, second, there are economic modes.  Here, decisions over expenditures will be instrumental.  If those in authoritative positions sense or know that there are recalcitrant rebels fighting the desired change, decisions over budgetary allocations can and will administer the necessary punishments to solicit compliance.  This has proven highly effective in terms of actual activities subordinates perform, if not the all-out devotion those activities might demand.  Those are the sorts of actions that the more powerful can administer over the less powerful, but do not explain what options exist for the less powerful entities who desire and are willing to pursue change.

 If the change advocate is less powerful (and assuming that there exists enough of a cadre of malcontents, either within or without the organizational structure in question who wish for change) what can those desiring change do?  Under these conditions, this type of change is not short term; these strategies take a lot of time.  The most common avenue here is for such a person or group to organize the discontented who is or are demanding that change occur.  This can take place, as appropriate, within or without the organization or governmental entity, within or without the legitimate channels of authority.  For example, teachers who seek changes in their working conditions might organize to engage in tougher labor actions such as staging a strike or work stoppage – activities that are to some degree illegal in a lot of states.  The aim is not to cause disruption for its own sake, but to seek a shift in the conflict from confrontation to negotiation.  This might take on the air of legitimacy, even if the actions are illegal – albeit more difficult – if the initial demands are seen, by the general public, as advancing fairness and justice.  Of course, if the lesser powerful party has been viewed as being subject to authoritarian subjugation, this adds to the image of any existing unfairness.  If these conditions exist, then such options as quasi or fully illegal means might cause the more powerful party to be sufficiently hurt by the actions and, therefore, will be encouraged to negotiate.  This result, being the aim of the change advocates in the first place, will be considered a success.  Needless to say, the fact that one might be speaking of illegal or semi-illegal activity adds to the burden of those seeking change as they must overcome expected allegiance for the law.  

 There are times, however, that one or two of the conflicted parties might want, for whatever reason, to continue the conflict.  If this is the case, then we are talking about such a heightened conflict that one would question the ultimate aims of one or both sides of the conflict.  In these extreme cases, expressed aims are simply not what is sought.  Instead, what is sought is probably a more institutional change that is or borders on revolutionary change.  That is, they are either attempting to change the system by destroying the ability of the advocates to organize or overthrow the system.

 In my next posting, I will review more specific power-coercive strategies.  I will address the issue of having to depend on punishment; i. e., does one, even under a power-coercive type of strategy have to depend only on punishment to get results? These more specific strategies will stretch from those advocated by Gandhi to Marx.  The expanse of these strategies is quite wide, but they are over a singular aim:  inflict pain – physical, economic, or psychological – to gain acquiescence to sought-after change.

[1] Chin, R. and Benne, K. D.  (1985). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems.  In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and R. Chin (Eds.), The Planning of Change (pp. 22-45).  New York, NY:  Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

 [2] French, J. R. P. and Raven, B. H. (1967). The bases of power. In. E. P. Hollander and R. G. Hunt (Eds.) Current perspectives in social psychology (504-512). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  AAADOK79䱸��