In political science, power is the ability to direct the actions and conduct of others. Political power is usually exercised through government offices with authority, over political societies which are often termed states. Power does not exclusively refer to the threat or use of force (coercion) by one actor against another, but may also be exerted through diffuse means (such as institutions).

The term authority is often used for power that is perceived as legitimate or socially approved by the social structure. Scholars have distinguished between soft power and hard power.Wilson III, E. J. (2008). Hard power, soft power, smart power. The annals of the American academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 110-124.Gray, Colin S. Hard power and soft power: the utility of military force as an instrument of policy in the 21st century. Lulu. com, 2011.

Definition The concept of power in politics has been debated, with many thinkers offering differing definitions. Political scientist Robert Dahl views power as a form of "relations among people", wherein one party has an ability to command over another party. Hannah Arendt defined power as being an instrument of political rule, and disassociated power with the ability of an actor to use violence. Max Weber defined power as "any chance (regardless of the basis of this chance) to carry through one’s own will", even against outright opposition.

Types Soft power soft power is the ability to influence or persuade others through the use of persuasive means, as opposed to the use of force or coercion, which is an aspect of hard power.

Hard power hard power is the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior or interests of other political bodies. This form of political power is often aggressive (coercion), and is most immediately effective when imposed by one political body upon another of less military and/or economic power.

Authoritarian/Absolute

Democratic

Oligarchic Minoritarianism is a neologism for a political structure or process in which a minority group of a population has a certain degree of primacy in that population's decision making, with legislative power or judicial power being held or controlled by a minority group rather than a majority that is representative of the population. Minoritarianism is sometimes used to describe minority rule, rule by a dominant minority such as an ethnic group delineated by religion, language, or some other identifying factor.

Authority

Political authority grants members of a government the right to rule over citizens using coercion if necessary, while imposing an obligation on citizens to obey government orders (i.e., political obligation).

Power politics

Effects Power changes those in the position of power and those who are targets of that power.Forsyth, D.R. (2010). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Approach/inhibition theory Developed by D. Keltner and colleagues,Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. approach/inhibition theory assumes that having power and using power alters psychological states of individuals. The theory is based on the notion that most organisms react to environmental events in two common ways. The reaction of approach is associated with action, self-promotion, seeking rewards, increased energy and movement. Inhibition, on the contrary, is associated with self-protection, avoiding threats or danger, vigilance, loss of motivation and an overall reduction in activity.

Overall, approach/inhibition theory holds that power promotes approach tendencies, while a reduction in power promotes inhibition tendencies.

Positive

Power prompts people to take action Makes individuals more responsive to changes within a group and its environmentKeltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151–192. Powerful people are more proactive, more likely to speak up, make the first move, and lead negotiationMagee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). "Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 200–212. Powerful people are more focused on the goals appropriate in a given situation and tend to plan more task-related activities in a work settingGuinote, A. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95:2, 237–252. Powerful people tend to experience more positive emotions, such as happiness and satisfaction, and they smile more than low-power individualsBerdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology: Special Issue on Social Power and Group Processes, 36, 497–509. Power is associated with optimism about the future because more powerful individuals focus their attention on more positive aspects of the environmentAnderson, C., & Galinsky, A.D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536. People with more power tend to carry out executive cognitive functions more rapidly and successfully, including internal control mechanisms that coordinate attention, decision-making, planning, and goal-selectionSmith, P.K., N.B. Jostmann, A.D. Galinsky, W.W. van Dijk. 2008. Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychol. Sci. 19: 441–447.

Negative Powerful people are prone to take risky, inappropriate, or unethical decisions and often overstep their boundariesEmler, N. & Cook, T. (2001). Moral integrity in leadership: Why it matters and why it may be difficult to achieve. In Roberts, B. & Hogan, R. (Eds.). Personality psychology in the workplace. Washington, DC: APA Press (pp. 277–298).Clark, R.D., & Sechrest, L.B. (1976). The mandate phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1057–1061. They tend to generate negative emotional reactions in their subordinates, particularly when there is a conflict in the groupFodor, E.M., & Riordan, J.M. (1995). Leader power motive and group conflict as influences on leader behavior and group member self-affect. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 418–431. When individuals gain power, their self-evaluation become more positive, while their evaluations of others become more negativeGeorgesen, J. C., & Harris, M. J. (1998). Why's my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 184–195. Power tends to weaken one's social attentiveness, which leads to difficulty understanding other people's point of viewGalinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074. Powerful people also spend less time collecting and processing information about their subordinates and often perceive them in a stereotypical fashionFiske, S.T. (1993a). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628. People with power tend to use more coercive tactics, increase social distance between themselves and subordinates, believe that non-powerful individuals are untrustworthy, and devalue work and ability of less powerful individualsKipnis. D. (1974). The powerholders. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.). Perspectives on social power (pp. 82–122). Chicago; Aldine.

Theories

Five bases of power

In a now-classic study (1959),French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). 'The bases of social power,' in D. Cartwright (ed.) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 259–269. social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven developed a schema of sources of power by which to analyse how power plays work (or fail to work) in a specific relationship.

French and Raven argue that there are five significant categories of such qualities, while not excluding other minor categories. Further bases have since been proposed, in particular by Gareth Morgan in his 1986 book, Images of Organization.

Expert power

Expert power is an individual's power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified. When they have knowledge and skills that enable them to understand a situation, suggest solutions, use solid judgment, and generally outperform others, then people tend to listen to them. When individuals demonstrate expertise, people tend to trust them and respect what they say. As subject-matter experts, their ideas will have more value, and others will look to them for leadership in that area.

Reward power

In terms of cancel culture, the mass ostracization used to reconcile unchecked injustice and abuse of power is an "upward power". Policies for policing the internet against these processes as a pathway for creating due process for handling conflicts, abuses, and harm that is done through established processes are known as "downward power".

Coercive power

Coercive power is the application of negative influences. It includes the ability to defer or withhold other rewards. This is a type of power commonly seen in the fashion industry by coupling with legitimate power; it is referred to in the industry-specific literature as "glamorization of structural domination and exploitation".

Principles in interpersonal relationships According to Laura K. Guerrero and Peter A. Andersen in Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships, power in relationships is multifaceted. It can be perceived, relational, resource-based, and dependent on interest and commitment levels. While power often stems from controlling valued, scarce resources or having less dependence in a relationship, it is also shaped by behavior, social skills, and how others interpret one’s actions. Power can be enabling when used with confidence and skill, but disabling when it leads to manipulation, communication breakdowns, or relational dissatisfaction.Guerrero, Laura K., and Peter A. Andersen. Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2011. Print. pp. 267–261

Cultural hegemony In the Marxist tradition, the Italian writer Antonio Gramsci elaborated on the role of ideology in creating a cultural hegemony, which becomes a means of bolstering the power of capitalism and of the nation-state. Drawing on Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince and trying to understand why there had been no Communist revolution in Western Europe while it was claimed there had been one in Russia, Gramsci conceptualised this hegemony as a centaur, consisting of two halves. The back end, the beast, represented the more classic material image of power: power through coercion, through brute force, be it physical or economic. But the capitalist hegemony, he argued, depended even more strongly on the front end, the human face, which projected power through 'consent'. In Russia, this power was lacking, allowing for a revolution. However, in Western Europe, specifically in Italy, capitalism had succeeded in exercising consensual power, convincing the working classes that their interests were the same as those of capitalists. In this way, a revolution had been avoided.