POWER

Shambhavi Mani

Structure of the chapter:

1. Introduction
2. Defining power- Dichotomy between power over and power to-do.
3. Modern conception of Power- Max Weber, Foucault, Antonia Gramsci
4. Feminist Critique and theoretical Intervention in Power
5. Key concepts:
a) Patriarchy – Gendered Power Relations
b) Intersectionality
6. Decolonizing Power: Resistance and Empowerment in South Asian countries
7. Conclusion

INTRODUCTION:
Power is one of the most widely used, maneuvered and manipulated socio-political
concept altering or transforming individual and group relations. It usually creates a
hierarchical and asymmetrical assertion of populace being divided into powerful and
powerless.
As a concept it is essentially a contested political phenomenon. The scholars have not
come to conclusive convergence on how to define the concept. The literature on power
is distinguished by significant and seemingly unresolvable disputes regarding the
appropriate interpretation of the term.
Power becomes a pertinent concept for feminist to grapple with as they are largely
devoted to the tasks of critiquing gender subordination, analyzing its intersections with
other forms of subordination. They have long struggled with the intricate and varied
nature of power, understanding that it appears in different forms related to gender, race,
class, and other overlapping systems of oppression. Feminists have aimed to create
more thorough and nuanced perspectives on power to critically examine and confront
the various layers of hierarchies and differentiation impacting women in today's
societies, such as sexism, racism, heterosexism, and class oppression. To achieve this,
they acknowledge the importance of articulating the different ways power manifests and
also identifying non-pernicious forms of power that can be utilized for meaningful social
change through collective action. (Sawicki, 2002)
Thus, this chapter’s objective is to give the readers a comprehensive understanding of
how feminist perceives and theorize the concept of power and also the alternatives they
produce through resistance and empowerment of marginalized section of the society.
DEFINING POWER- POWER OVER AND POWER TO DO

As mentioned above, power is essentially a contested phenomenon and concept.

However, some of the most accepted definitions of power produces a dichotomy
between ‘power over’ and ‘power to do’.
Robert Dahl, a prominent sociologist has defined power as, “A has power over B to the
extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do”. Another
scholar, Steven Lukes defines power as a three-dimensional political phenomenon in his
book Power: A Radical View (2005). The one-dimensional view inspired by Robert dahl’s
conception of power, where in a decision-making process, it is considered as a
behavioral attribute that pertains to an individual's capacity to influence the behavior of
other individuals. The individual who prevails the decision-making process in a situation
is the one with the power. The second dimension taking a cue from Peter Bachrach and
Morton Baratz in their 1962 "Two Faces of Power” where agenda setting rather than
decision making is considered to be an important source of power. Lastly, the third
dimension is the set of ways in which the powerful transform the powerless in such a
way that the latter behave as the former wish -- without coercion or forcible constraint --
for example, by creating a pervasive system of ideology or false consciousness.
Hannah Arendt, delineates the power to do with her connotation which visualizes power
as, “the human ability not just to act but to act in concert”, also known as collective
power. It appears when people act in unison and disappears as soon as they are divided.
She alienates power clearly from authority, strength, force, and violence, providing a
normative perspective where power is seen as an end in itself. More than domination, it
shifts its focus to its transformational ability which enhances individuals’ capacity.
Hanan Pitkin expanding the scope of Arendt’s connotation defines it “as something –
anything – which makes or renders somebody able to do, capable of doing something.
Power is capacity, potential, ability, or wherewithal”.
It is important to note here that the first scholar to elucidate upon this dichotomy was
Mary Parker Follet when she was examining structures of power in an organization.
According to her power with and power over are two contrasting understanding of
power.
The former has a coercive connotation attached to it while the latter emphasizes upon
cooperative and coactive efforts. Peter Morris in Power: A Philosophical Analysis argues
that power should be defined in terms of what power we have to do/act rather than
over whom. He further elaborates that when one exerts power over someone, it doesn’t
remain power but is more aptly an’ influence’.
The concepts of power over and power to do which came about to decipher the real
meaning of power has now concretized themselves into three broader concepts of
power in the realm of political theory.
MODERN CONCEPTION OF POWER:
The classical notion of power mainly influenced by the writings of Machiavelli, Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke and even if we look through Ancient Indian texts like that of
Kautilya and Kamandiki, one witnesses power being centered around
individual(king/leviathan), territorial sovereignty and coercion. However, modern
conception of power focuses more on institutions and structures and aims at gaining
legitimacy and consent. Let’s have a look on modern theorist and their conception of
power.
Max Weber on Power:
Max Weber is a German sociologist whose contributions created a deep impact on
conception of power. He defines it as, “the probability that one actor within a social
relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of
the basis on which this probability rests”. His understanding of power has an element of
individual’s will, resistance and capabilities. He believes that power operates within
social relationships and is often shaped by them. His conception of power developed
from reckoning the rise of modern bureaucratic system. He argued that bureaucracies
tend to concentrate power and create a system of rational-legal authority. Weber
elaborates on three kinds of power; traditional, charismatic and rational-legal. The
traditional power derives from old conventions, traditions and social norms; charismatic
power emphasizes on an individual’s exceptional and convincing leadership qualities
whereas the rational legal is the most accepted modern form of power which is derived
from written laws, rules and bureaucratic structures.

Foucault on Power:
Micheal Foucault, a French philosopher confers a novel understanding of power which is
neither coercive nor coactive. According to him, power is not conferred in an individual
or a group of individuals, instead he ‘deindividualizes’ and ‘decentraslises’ power by
arguing that real power is conferred by the institutions like prison, school, factory and so
on. He further argues that modern practices and institutions which seems to have
innocuous existence actually converges to form structure of control. Foucault explains in
"The Subject and Power," "something called Power, with or without a capital letter,
which is assumed to exist universally in a concentrated or diffused form, does not exist.
Power exists only when it is put into action” When it comes to the relationship between
power and violence, Foucault mentions how the exercise of power always involves a
series of activities directed at the actions and responses of others. Although violence
 may be an element of some power interactions, "In itself the exercise of power is not
violence".
Power has a proportional relation with knowledge. According to him those who have the
power to shape and define the knowledge and discourse ends up shaping the reality of the
society. Thus, in addition to coercion power also implies people’s perception and
interpretation of the world. Power cannot be possessed, seized, or acquired rather it is
exercised from an interplay of hierarchical relationships. Another of his main conception of
power is through his theory of ‘biopower’. Biopower, “a new-mechanism of power which
had very specific procedures, completely new instruments, and very different equipment. It
was, I believe, absolutely incompatible with relations of sovereignty. This new mechanism
of power applies directly to bodies and' what they do rather than -to the land and what it
produces." Thus, biopower refers to regulation of bodies, population and life processes
through massive assistance of technology. It creates certain new identities and categories
and normalizes certain behaviors, traditions and practices over others.
Antonio Gramsci on Power:

Antonio Gramsci was an Italian philosopher who developed a distinct approach to power.
His ideas on power are best understood with his conception of hegemony. According to him,
power doesn’t only have a coercive but also has an element of cultural hegemony. In a society,
the ones who rules stabilizes and sustains their power through shaping the cultural narratives
and values of society. He further elaborates on this through his conception of “war of position”
believed that the struggle for power was long-term in building alliances, creating cultural
institutions, and shaping public opinion. It differed from a "war of maneuver," which involved
direct confrontations or violent acts. For this cultural domination, he insisted on the roles of
“organic intellectuals”. These intellectuals are those who evolved from the working class
and assist in giving shape to ruling class’s interests and values. According to him, the power
relation in a society function both through coercion and consent. The dominant class tries to
maintain its rule by gaining the consent of the working class but also uses coercion to
suppress the dissenting class. However, he also believed in resistance against hegemonic power.
This is plausible through the creation of counter-hegemonic movements. These movements
seek to challenge the cultural dominance of the ruling class and create alternative forms of
power.

Feminist Critique of Gendered Power Theories:

A major critique which is advanced towards the traditional political theories are underlined on
the fact that they are highly masculinized and ignores the hierarchical relationship that exists
between man and woman themselves. They tend to ignore that because of the patriarchal
setup men inevitably holds power over women. For instance, theories of power as those
proposed by John Rawls and other liberal theorists, tend to generalize the experiences and
needs of this "ideal subject," ignoring the varied experiences of people with marginalized
identities, including women, racial minorities, and others. Susan Moller Okin in her book Justice,
Gender and the Family critiques particularly Rawls theory of justice and argues that modern
gender-structured family inequitably allocates the responsibilities and loads of family life within
the marital couple. In her list of “critical social good” to be distributed equitably, Okin also
includes power.

Judith Butler, a prominent feminist and theorist critiques the traditional power theories which
overlooks the layers involving gender, identity and performativity. Her work, Gender Trouble
(1990) and The Psychic Life of Power (1997) offers an insight on her critique of power theories
underlying subjectivity and performativity. Butler, in her work Gender Trouble identifies an
issue with traditional theory of power which is based on concept of a stable, coherent subject
— an individual who exercises power over others or is subjected to power. This idea of the
subject is frequently tied to an essential, pre-existing identity that is presumed to be
foundational and autonomous. She critiques this and argues that subject is not an integrated,
whole entity but is produced by reiteration of norms and practices. She further elucidates, that
identity such as gender, is not something we “are”, but something we “do”, it is performative.
Following Foucauldian notion of power not just being repressive, Butler argues that Power
doesn't merely repress or control; it is productive and regulatory. Not only it creates subjects
and identities, but also regulates it by controlling the ‘socially acceptable performances,
behaviors and discourses.’ For her, power cannot be compartmentalized from the process of
identity formation and social relations. Butler also critiques the identity formation in traditional
power theories, which relied on foxed, stable and universal identity categories such as ‘male’
and ‘female’. In ‘Gender trouble’ she rejects this categorization of identities themselves. She
challenges these binary distinctions in identities and argues that they are not innate rather
socially constructed through repeated performativity.

Marxist Feminist Nancy Hartsock, in her work Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist
Historical Materialism (1983) offers an alternative perspective on historical materialism. She
investigates firstly, “how relations of domination along lines of gender are constructed and
maintained” and secondly, “whether social understandings of domination itself have been
distorted by men’s domination of women”. Her theory of power is built along with the lines of
Marxist conceptualization of history rooted in material, economic relations of that society. She
further critiques the traditional power theories based on market model of economic relations
which emphasizes exchange from the viewpoint of the ruling class and isolates the production
perspective representing workers' experiences. Furthermore, Hartsock contends that power and
domination have historically been linked to masculinity. Since power has been interpreted
through the lens of the socially dominant groups—namely, the ruling class and men—she
asserts that the feminist endeavor must involve redefining power from a distinctly feminist
perspective, one that is grounded in women's lived experiences, particularly their roles in
reproduction.

Even Foucauldian notion of power, which itself critiques traditional theory of power has been
critiqued by many feminists including Hartsock, Nancy Fraser and Seyla Benhabib. Hartsock
critiques Foucault’s conception on two fronts, firstly that it observes power from the lens of
colonizers rather than colonized and secondly, because it does observe power from the
oppressor’s lens its attempt to adequately reckon with the structural dynamics of inequality and
domination that contribute to the subjugation of women fails. Nancy Fraser, as described by
Amy Allen contends that while Foucault's scholarship provides valuable empirical observations
regarding the operation of contemporary power, it is fundamentally "normatively confused." He
appears to imply that normative concepts such as autonomy, legitimacy, and sovereignty are, in
fact, products of modern power dynamics. Although Foucault asserts that power is invariably
met with resistance, Fraser maintains that he fails to articulate the rationale for opposing
domination.

KEY CONCEPTIONS IN FEMINIST UNDERSTANDING OF POWER:

A) Patriarchy
Feminist understanding of the world and its phenomena is based on the belief in the
patriarchal structure of the world. It is through the critique and analysis of patriarchy,
feminist challenges the systematic dominance of men and masculine values in society. It
is central to understanding how gender inequalities are structured, maintained, and
perpetuated over time. In a patriarchal setup, it is the men who wields power over
women and other gender minorities socially, politically and economically. The culture
and conventions, institutions are based on privileging men’s interest, authority and
perspectives starting from the hands of primary care givers.
This impact of Patriarchy and its role in subordination of women and how it impacts
their day-to-day functioning finds a profound explanation in Simone de Beauvoir's work,
The Second Sex. Her argument is based on the distinction between being for-itself,
which is self-conscious subjectivity with the ability to be free and transcend, and being
in-itself, which refers to unconsciousness that has no freedom and is restricted to
immanence. According to Beauvoir, men have assumed the role of the transcendent
subject, while women have been relegated to the status of the immanent Other. In
a striking quote from the Introduction to The Second Sex, she writes, "She is defined and
differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the
incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the
Absolute – she is the Other" (Beauvoir, xxii). This critical distinction between man as
Subject and woman as other forms the basis for Beauvoir's exploration of domination
and oppression.
 Catherine McKinnon a legal theorist and feminist, conceptualizes patriarchy through the
phenomena of domination vis a vis subordination, much similar to that of relationship
between master and slave. the concept of gender difference is merely a manifestation of
domination. She articulates that “difference is the velvet glove on the iron fist of
domination. The issue lies not in the lack of value placed on differences; rather, it is that
these differences are shaped by power” (MacKinnon 1989, 219). If gender difference
arises from domination, it follows that men are inherently powerful while women are
inherently powerless. MacKinnon further asserts that “the distinction between women
and men is not solely one of difference, but also of power and powerlessness…the
essence of sex difference is power versus powerlessness.” For MacKinnon, heterosexual
intercourse is the paradigm of male domination; as she puts it, “the social relation
between the sexes is organized so that men may dominate and women must submit and
this relation is sexual – in fact, is sex.”
In Indian context, Uma Chakraborti provides an elaborate understanding of mechanism
of control over women. According to her, it worked on three different levels. The first
was internalization of patriarchy through stridharma or pativartadharma. Secondly, the
ideals of chastity and purity were inculcated in women as highest duty of women
through the hegemonic social code. The third and last, is the role of state in not only
promoting and propagating patriarchy but making it an actual reality of their society.
Chakrabarti highlights that patriarchy has been a system of benevolent paternalism in
which obedient women were accorded certain rights and privileges and security that
made insubordination invisible and led to their compliance for the same.
Nivedita Menon, another prominent South Asian feminist contends that even in
patriarchal setup, there is a plausibility of women having power. For example, “in South
Asian countries mother in laws may have some power, but not as daughters, wives or
sisters (of man)”. Women in these patriarchal society are completely recognized in their
relation to men of their family, a woman with no legitimate relation with any man is
rendered powerless and disempowered.
She also understands patriarchy not from a homogenous but from differentiated
historical epochs, geographical regions and cultural communities. This is what an
intersectional understanding of power is which will be discussed in next section.

B. Intersectionality

Kimberle Crenshaw, a legal theorist popularized the word intersectionality when she
analyzed and criticized the single-axis frameworks for comprehending domination within
the realm of legal discrimination reveals significant limitations. These frameworks regard
race and gender as distinct and separate categories of experience. Consequently, this
 approach inadvertently favors the viewpoints of the most advantaged individuals within
marginalized groups. Intersectionality describes the interconnectedness of various
social stratifications, such as race, class, gender, and sexuality, which together create
distinct experiences of disadvantage for individuals situated at these intersections.

Influenced by Kimberle Crenshaw’s work on intersectionality, Iris Marion Young presents

a power in contemporary industrial societies, as “widely dispersed and diffused”. It is
nonetheless true that “social relations are tightly defined by domination and oppression”. She
acknowledged that gender oppression is intertwined with other forms of oppression, including
race, class, and sexuality. Young's theories on oppression and power recognized that gender
must be examined in conjunction with other dimensions of identity and inequality. For her
oppression is a social phenomenon. She elaborates it through her five faces of oppression which
includes, Exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and violence
represent interconnected forms of oppression that are not merely individual experiences but
are collectively endured by social groups, particularly those subjected to gender-based
oppression. Women, especially women of color and those from working-class backgrounds,
encounter oppression in diverse manners, frequently involving various intersecting forms of
marginalization that a universalistic gender analysis fails to fully address.

Bell Hooks, questions the most accepted understanding of patriarchy which is conflict between
men and women. She argues that both men and women should alienate themselves from sexist
ideals and praxis. Family which is considered to be a site of oppression and violence in almost
every society, she argues doesn’t hold the same experience for an African-American woman.
She further elaborates on how a universalistic understanding of oppression of women can lead
to denial of possibility of a scenario where women oppress another woman. Hence, she
promotes an analysis of class, caste, race, disability, sexuality and gender when one analyses the
conception of power, domination and control.

Decolonizing the conception of Power: Resistance and Empowerment in South Asian

Countries

One of the most influential works on feminist conception of power through post-colonial
framework has been done by Gayatri Spivak in her work “Can the subaltern Speak?”. In her
essay, Spivak indicates, the if a subaltern is unable to speak, then the "subaltern as female is
even more deeply in shadow". She tries to elucidate it with an example of the British prohibition
of sati in colonial India, where she argues that the subaltern is silenced due to her position
between imperialist narratives and patriarchal traditions, both of which inhibit her ability to
express her experiences. Postcolonial feminist argues that importing western feminism into the
tapestries of South Asian and South East Asian countries ignores the historical circumstances
and values particular to the region. In lieu with this, Gopal Guru contends the import of western
framework into Indian feminism. He insists on Dalit women talking differently as caste increases
their vulnerability towards domination and violence. Sharmila Rege, insisted on the importance
of the category of ‘difference’ brought to the center of feminist analysis. Within this framework
of ‘difference’ the linkages of caste, gender and oppression should be understood.

Another significant work in decolonizing feminist conception of power is by Chandra Talpade

Mohanty. She critiques Western feminist perspectives on “Third World Women,” arguing that
they often present a reductive and overly simplistic view of power dynamics and oppression.
She notes that these discourses tend to define power in binary terms: those who possess it
(typically men) and those who do not (typically women). Mohanty asserts, “Men exploit,
women are exploited,” and emphasizes that such simplistic interpretations are historically
narrow and ineffective in formulating strategies to address oppression. In contrast, she
advocates for an intersectional approach to understanding power that avoids the
homogenization or false universalization of women's experiences.

Fatima Merssini, a Morrocan born feminist who wrote an influential publication "Beyond the
Veil," where she examines the dynamics of male dominance and authority as they manifest in
Islamic traditions. Her critique indicates that conventional understandings of power have been
skewed by patriarchal interpretations of Islam, which limit women's autonomy and freedom of
movement in Pakistan. In her critique of power, she underscores the ways in which patriarchy, in
both traditional and contemporary settings, governs women's bodies and environments. She
questions the notion of male authority as a construct shaped by social and religious factors,
advocating for a re-evaluation of religious texts to promote women's empowerment.

In Indian context, the translation of shakti is power. Tracing the epistemic roots of shakti in
Hindu scriptures, it refers to a divine feminine energy offering a fresh and dynamic alternative to
the masculine reckoning of the concept. Shakti is manifested in all aspects of human life. It is
manifest as the very affective ability of all the forces of nature. It is the source of creation,
preservation and destruction of the universe. This form of power is a representation of women’s
strength, empowerment and resilience. The concept with its novel approach views women at
places of authority, decision making with a more sustainable and inclusive process. This concept
doesn’t restrict itself to women only. It is present both in men and women, thus symbolizing the
importance of synergy and balance between the two. Shakti thus symbolizes energy, strength,
and transformation. An instance of symbolizing power in South Asia is the famous and revered
Kamakhya devi temple. A symbol of feminine power, where the female reproductive organ is
worshipped celebrating the female power of generating creating life. This is one of the finest
examples of how power is demasculinized in South Asian context.

Even the Buddhist concept of Therigatha symbolizes power in a transformative, where one
doesn’t seek to control others. The women fought and abandoned the social subjugation and
followed the path of nirvana achieving spiritual power. By defying the control of the male heads
over themselves, these women embody a spirit of resilience and thus empowered themselves
through a spiritual resistance in a male dominated world.

Conclusion:

The concept of power needs to be critically reassessed and the entrenched systems of power
that continue to perpetuate colonial and masculine legacies in contemporary societies needs to
be challenged. The gendered structures of control and knowledge production shapes
contemporary institutions and societal norms, which often marginalizes indigenous voices and
reinforcing unequal power dynamics. The decolonized and feminist approach to power
dismantles the hegemonic and masculine forms of power and empowers oppressed
communities. It calls for the restructuring these intersecting systems of control, offering a
reimagined power dynamic that centers the voices, experiences, and knowledge of women
historically silenced or excluded. By decolonizing power, feminist thought challenges traditional
hierarchies, advocating for gender justice, autonomy, and collective liberation.

References: