Ability and Influence in Social and Non-Social Power
Language can give us some ideas about possible directions of exploring power. But language does not give us any specific answers about what power is. After looking at a (admittedly small) sample of languages, I asked myself: Why do human beings talk about power to describe themselves, but they also talk about power when referring to many other aspects of the world? The word “power” and many concepts related to it (e.g., “authority,” “competency,” "prestige") describe people and their relationships. I decided to call it “social power.” But plenty of meanings of the word "power" actually refer to things that are not people and their relationships: for example, electricity, magnification, and deity. I decided to call it “non-social power.” Language appears to suggest that people view power in social and non-social terms.
One pervasive reference to power—that you constantly encounter and use without realizing it—is the word “can,” which is directly related to the idea of power. The English word “power” comes from Latin “posse,” which meant “be able” ("can" and "be able" are synonyms). We use the word “can” to talk about ourselves, other people, other living beings—but also about inanimate objects (“Be careful, this stone can fall!”) and, in fact, about a whole range of phenomena. We can probably use the word “can” to talk about practically anything. Moreover, we cannot not use it. (You might notice from this paragraph that it is hard to not use the word "can" even when we are having a philosophical discussion about the word "can"!)
One pervasive reference to power—that you constantly encounter and use without realizing it—is the word “can,” which is directly related to the idea of power. The English word “power” comes from Latin “posse,” which meant “be able” ("can" and "be able" are synonyms). We use the word “can” to talk about ourselves, other people, other living beings—but also about inanimate objects (“Be careful, this stone can fall!”) and, in fact, about a whole range of phenomena. We can probably use the word “can” to talk about practically anything. Moreover, we cannot not use it. (You might notice from this paragraph that it is hard to not use the word "can" even when we are having a philosophical discussion about the word "can"!)
Image credit: Sean Quillen
So, I wondered, what hidden assumption does language reveal by suggesting that power can be social or non-social? In other words, what can we learn from the fact that people talk about power as related to themselves and their relationships and also as related to everything else?
People are preoccupied with many aspects of the world they live in. For practical reasons, they want to make sense of relationships between elements of this world. For practical reasons, because our survival (as individuals and as species) depends on it. I discussed here how exploring meanings of power suggests that many of these meanings fall into two broad categories: ability and influence. It should be fairly easy to see how understanding a variety of abilities (as related to an individual and his/her surroundings) is crucial. Can this tiger eat me? Can I throw a big stone to make the tiger go away? Can I eat this strange-looking fruit? We can assume that proto-forms of the word “can” helped our ancestors make some crucial decisions and communicate them to each other (“You cannot eat this mushroom!”). Similarly, modern forms of the word “can,” with its different forms and nuances, help people navigate the world today.
There is a lot of evidence for this claim to be found in language. I have already mentioned the pervasiveness of the modal verb "can." Other meanings of power that refer to ability include capacity, energy, impetus, strength, vigor, vitality, faculty, aptitude, action, competency, and productivity. In addition, meanings of power as ability can even hide in affixes ("affix" is "an additional element placed at the beginning or end of a root, stem, or word, or in the body of a word, to modify its meaning"). For example, in English, we can add the suffixes “-able” or “-ible” to about anything. This allows us to talk about things we can do (as in, we have this capacity or we are allowed to), and about what different elements of the world can do to us. In other languages, other grammar forms have the same function. Spanish also has suffixes “-able” and “-ible” (e.g., “realizable” = doable and “disponible” = available), while in German we have suffix “-bar” (e.g., “lesbar” = readable), and in Russian there is "-aemiy" and "-imiy" ("neproiznosimiy" = unpronounceable).
In addition to abilities and capacities, people have always found it crucial to make sense of influences, impacts, and effects. As social beings, they needed to answer such questions, "What is my influence on others?" and "What is my influence on them?" as related to other people. Same (often unconscious) concerns about survival (as individuals and as species) prompted people to constantly ponder how different aspects of the world influence them, and how these aspects influence each other. The fact that our brain is constantly looking for cause-and-effect relationships is a manifestation of this preoccupation (there are many psychological experiments that attest to that). Indeed, when we talk about abilities, we also often talk about influences at the same time.
And, by the way, when I talk about abilities and influences separately, I do not mean that they really exist separately. These are just two aspects of the same coin—a very complicated “coin,” for sure. That’s why a sentence like “I can influence you” makes perfect sense. In other words, it is possible to talk about having an ability, or being allowed, to have an impact.
Notably, the word "possible" is also directly related to power. The words "possible" and "power" come from the same Latin root: "posse" that meant "be able." And you can see the importance of the word "possible" in people's communication and everyday life. It's crucial to know what is possible and what is impossible. We are often preoccupied with what's possible and what isn't. We often think about and discuss it.
So, I wondered, what hidden assumption does language reveal by suggesting that power can be social or non-social? In other words, what can we learn from the fact that people talk about power as related to themselves and their relationships and also as related to everything else?
People are preoccupied with many aspects of the world they live in. For practical reasons, they want to make sense of relationships between elements of this world. For practical reasons, because our survival (as individuals and as species) depends on it. I discussed here how exploring meanings of power suggests that many of these meanings fall into two broad categories: ability and influence. It should be fairly easy to see how understanding a variety of abilities (as related to an individual and his/her surroundings) is crucial. Can this tiger eat me? Can I throw a big stone to make the tiger go away? Can I eat this strange-looking fruit? We can assume that proto-forms of the word “can” helped our ancestors make some crucial decisions and communicate them to each other (“You cannot eat this mushroom!”). Similarly, modern forms of the word “can,” with its different forms and nuances, help people navigate the world today.
There is a lot of evidence for this claim to be found in language. I have already mentioned the pervasiveness of the modal verb "can." Other meanings of power that refer to ability include capacity, energy, impetus, strength, vigor, vitality, faculty, aptitude, action, competency, and productivity. In addition, meanings of power as ability can even hide in affixes ("affix" is "an additional element placed at the beginning or end of a root, stem, or word, or in the body of a word, to modify its meaning"). For example, in English, we can add the suffixes “-able” or “-ible” to about anything. This allows us to talk about things we can do (as in, we have this capacity or we are allowed to), and about what different elements of the world can do to us. In other languages, other grammar forms have the same function. Spanish also has suffixes “-able” and “-ible” (e.g., “realizable” = doable and “disponible” = available), while in German we have suffix “-bar” (e.g., “lesbar” = readable), and in Russian there is "-aemiy" and "-imiy" ("neproiznosimiy" = unpronounceable).
In addition to abilities and capacities, people have always found it crucial to make sense of influences, impacts, and effects. As social beings, they needed to answer such questions, "What is my influence on others?" and "What is my influence on them?" as related to other people. Same (often unconscious) concerns about survival (as individuals and as species) prompted people to constantly ponder how different aspects of the world influence them, and how these aspects influence each other. The fact that our brain is constantly looking for cause-and-effect relationships is a manifestation of this preoccupation (there are many psychological experiments that attest to that). Indeed, when we talk about abilities, we also often talk about influences at the same time.
And, by the way, when I talk about abilities and influences separately, I do not mean that they really exist separately. These are just two aspects of the same coin—a very complicated “coin,” for sure. That’s why a sentence like “I can influence you” makes perfect sense. In other words, it is possible to talk about having an ability, or being allowed, to have an impact.
Notably, the word "possible" is also directly related to power. The words "possible" and "power" come from the same Latin root: "posse" that meant "be able." And you can see the importance of the word "possible" in people's communication and everyday life. It's crucial to know what is possible and what is impossible. We are often preoccupied with what's possible and what isn't. We often think about and discuss it.
Image credit: Chang Ye
Because I have been trying to understand power for a few years now, I started noticing how often I see the word “power” and words related to it in my everyday life. When I explored meanings of power in language (see here), I came up with the following list of meanings related to social power:
Ability: ability, capacity, energy, impetus, strength, force, vigor, vitality, faculty, aptitude, competency, productivity
Influence: effect, authority, right, control, influence, force, might, rule, dominion, grip, sway, proxy, prestige, impact, action
[I intentionally put "force" in two different categories.]
Many of these words are important in everyday communication, especially such words as ability, energy, strengths, effect, right, control, influence, and right. Consider this: every time you use these words or their synonyms, you talk about power.
But that's not all. There are also many ways to talk about non-social power. You can often see "power" on electronic devices and appliances. Personally, I am confronted with the “power” button every time I turn off my computer. It does not even have to be the word: the related on/off symbol carries the same meaning. And I believe that the on/off button is directly related to our discussion about abilities and effects. When a device or an appliance is on, it can do stuff (or we can do stuff with it, we are able to). The appliance can create an effect—for example, an electric kettle can make the water boil, or a vacuum cleaner can suck in some dust from my carpet.
Electricity is often called “power.” If I say that there is a power outage in my neighborhood because of a storm, you will easily understand that many houses lost electricity. Power as electricity is related to the on/off (power) button because appliances that have this button are usually electric. You will not find an on/off button on a broom (although one can imagine a non-electrical mechanism with an on/off switch). The meaning of power as electricity is connected to abilities and influences in a way quite similar to the on/off button that I described in the previous paragraph. Electricity powers things up in a sense that it allows them to be able to do stuff, to produce an effect.
Because I have been trying to understand power for a few years now, I started noticing how often I see the word “power” and words related to it in my everyday life. When I explored meanings of power in language (see here), I came up with the following list of meanings related to social power:
Ability: ability, capacity, energy, impetus, strength, force, vigor, vitality, faculty, aptitude, competency, productivity
Influence: effect, authority, right, control, influence, force, might, rule, dominion, grip, sway, proxy, prestige, impact, action
[I intentionally put "force" in two different categories.]
Many of these words are important in everyday communication, especially such words as ability, energy, strengths, effect, right, control, influence, and right. Consider this: every time you use these words or their synonyms, you talk about power.
But that's not all. There are also many ways to talk about non-social power. You can often see "power" on electronic devices and appliances. Personally, I am confronted with the “power” button every time I turn off my computer. It does not even have to be the word: the related on/off symbol carries the same meaning. And I believe that the on/off button is directly related to our discussion about abilities and effects. When a device or an appliance is on, it can do stuff (or we can do stuff with it, we are able to). The appliance can create an effect—for example, an electric kettle can make the water boil, or a vacuum cleaner can suck in some dust from my carpet.
Electricity is often called “power.” If I say that there is a power outage in my neighborhood because of a storm, you will easily understand that many houses lost electricity. Power as electricity is related to the on/off (power) button because appliances that have this button are usually electric. You will not find an on/off button on a broom (although one can imagine a non-electrical mechanism with an on/off switch). The meaning of power as electricity is connected to abilities and influences in a way quite similar to the on/off button that I described in the previous paragraph. Electricity powers things up in a sense that it allows them to be able to do stuff, to produce an effect.
Image credit: © User:Colin / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0
In a similar vein, it appears that various non-social meanings of power can be reduced in one way or another to the ideas of ability and/or influence. For example, magnification is defined by Merriam Webster (as its second meaning) as “the apparent enlargement of an object by an optical instrument, also called power.” Here we can see an optical instrument producing an effect, making an object appear larger. We have power in a mathematical sense, “the number of times as indicated by an exponent that a number occurs as a factor in a product”--for example “5 to the third power is 125.” Here we see an effect as well, and also, incidentally, an effect of enlargement. Magnitude itself (and also scope, size) is related to power in the eyes of human beings because of the potential impact. The word “magnitude” refers to size but also to importance.
In a very different cultural realm, we have “Powers” as an order (or type) of angels in Christianity. Their original name comes from the Greek word “exousiai,” which is usually translated as “authorities” (this explains the common translation of this type of angels as "Powers"). The role of Powers is essential: maintaining cosmic order and executing divine justice. Powers can be described as warrior angels: they fight evil spirits. They even oversee the distribution of power among humans and other angels. Here we see a clear reference to the power as influence (authority and control).
If you pay closer attention to the instances when you encounter references to non-social power, you should be able to notice the themes of ability and influence. You can see it on a package of laundry-detergent, which boasts to have a “stain-lifting power” or in a street sign inviting you to subject your vehicle to power washing. You can see it in a text that describes a certain city as a major economic power in the region (this example is closer to social power, but it describes a city as a whole rather than specific individuals). Other examples include "energy bars" and "energy drinks" (which are supposed to give more strength to people who consume them); whether forecasts describing strength of wind or tornado; any measurement of impact; any discussions about capacities and forces (e.g., forces of nature); and so on and so forth. Examples are numerous.
In a similar vein, it appears that various non-social meanings of power can be reduced in one way or another to the ideas of ability and/or influence. For example, magnification is defined by Merriam Webster (as its second meaning) as “the apparent enlargement of an object by an optical instrument, also called power.” Here we can see an optical instrument producing an effect, making an object appear larger. We have power in a mathematical sense, “the number of times as indicated by an exponent that a number occurs as a factor in a product”--for example “5 to the third power is 125.” Here we see an effect as well, and also, incidentally, an effect of enlargement. Magnitude itself (and also scope, size) is related to power in the eyes of human beings because of the potential impact. The word “magnitude” refers to size but also to importance.
In a very different cultural realm, we have “Powers” as an order (or type) of angels in Christianity. Their original name comes from the Greek word “exousiai,” which is usually translated as “authorities” (this explains the common translation of this type of angels as "Powers"). The role of Powers is essential: maintaining cosmic order and executing divine justice. Powers can be described as warrior angels: they fight evil spirits. They even oversee the distribution of power among humans and other angels. Here we see a clear reference to the power as influence (authority and control).
If you pay closer attention to the instances when you encounter references to non-social power, you should be able to notice the themes of ability and influence. You can see it on a package of laundry-detergent, which boasts to have a “stain-lifting power” or in a street sign inviting you to subject your vehicle to power washing. You can see it in a text that describes a certain city as a major economic power in the region (this example is closer to social power, but it describes a city as a whole rather than specific individuals). Other examples include "energy bars" and "energy drinks" (which are supposed to give more strength to people who consume them); whether forecasts describing strength of wind or tornado; any measurement of impact; any discussions about capacities and forces (e.g., forces of nature); and so on and so forth. Examples are numerous.
Image credit: Author. Sign for “power washing” in downtown Chicago.
Some time ago, I was walking around the city of Cambridge in the United Kingdom when in the store window I spotted a book that prominently featured the word “power” on its cover. It turned out to be a collection of essays (published by Cambridge University Press) based on the Darwin College Lecture Series. Cambridge University scholars talking about power - this should be worth looking into! "Would the themes of ability and influence be present in a collection of essays endowed by such an influential (power again!) academic institution?" I wondered. It turns out that they would.
Here is how this collection of essays is described on the official website of Cambridge University Press: “In this book, first published in 2006, seven internationally renowned writers address the theme of Power from the perspective of their own disciplines. Energy expert Mary Archer begins with an exploration of the power sources of our future. Astronomer Neil Tyson leads a tour of the orders of magnitude in the cosmos. Mathematician and inventor of the Game of Life John Conway demonstrates the power of simple ideas in mathematics. Screenwriter Maureen Thomas explains the mechanisms of narrative power in the media of film and videogames, Elisabeth Bronfen the emotional power carried by representations of life and death, and Derek Scott the power of patriotic music and the mysterious Mozart effect. Finally, celebrated parliamentarian Tony Benn critically assesses the reality of power and democracy in society.”
What is remarkable about this book, from my perspective, is that it shows (yet again) that power is a very complicated and vague concept that can be applied to people and their relationships (social power) but also to other things that are not directly related to people (non-social power). The first chapter talks about power in the sense of electricity. The second chapter talks about power in the sense of magnitude. I have already discussed a few paragraphs earlier how electricity and magnitude are related to ability and influence. The third chapter talks about how ”simple ideas can be astonishingly powerful” which means that they are “truly earth-shattering”—again the reference to impact (i.e., influence). The last four chapters are directly related to social power: narrative power (on how people create and tell stories through media), emotional power of representations (created by people), power of music (also created by people), and power in society (on how some people have more power than others--i.e., can do more things and have more influence).
Here is how this collection of essays is described on the official website of Cambridge University Press: “In this book, first published in 2006, seven internationally renowned writers address the theme of Power from the perspective of their own disciplines. Energy expert Mary Archer begins with an exploration of the power sources of our future. Astronomer Neil Tyson leads a tour of the orders of magnitude in the cosmos. Mathematician and inventor of the Game of Life John Conway demonstrates the power of simple ideas in mathematics. Screenwriter Maureen Thomas explains the mechanisms of narrative power in the media of film and videogames, Elisabeth Bronfen the emotional power carried by representations of life and death, and Derek Scott the power of patriotic music and the mysterious Mozart effect. Finally, celebrated parliamentarian Tony Benn critically assesses the reality of power and democracy in society.”
What is remarkable about this book, from my perspective, is that it shows (yet again) that power is a very complicated and vague concept that can be applied to people and their relationships (social power) but also to other things that are not directly related to people (non-social power). The first chapter talks about power in the sense of electricity. The second chapter talks about power in the sense of magnitude. I have already discussed a few paragraphs earlier how electricity and magnitude are related to ability and influence. The third chapter talks about how ”simple ideas can be astonishingly powerful” which means that they are “truly earth-shattering”—again the reference to impact (i.e., influence). The last four chapters are directly related to social power: narrative power (on how people create and tell stories through media), emotional power of representations (created by people), power of music (also created by people), and power in society (on how some people have more power than others--i.e., can do more things and have more influence).
Image credit: Author. This is a picture I took in Cambridge, UK.
So, to remind you, I asked myself this question: Why do people talk about power as related to themselves, but also to many other aspects of their world? Using my conclusion (made here) that when people talk about power, they often talk about abilities and influences, I suggested that people are perpetually preoccupied with abilities and influences. They think about them, they talk about them, they want to understand them, and sometimes to challenge them (e.g., I want to be able to do more than I currently can; I want this other person not to have the impact that she currently does; etc.). Not only are human beings preoccupied with abilities and influences when it comes to them; they apply the same kind of interest and concerns to many other aspects and elements of the world they live in. To check whether I am on the right track with this reasoning, I suggested considering how often the themes of abilities and influences come up in human communication and culture. And I showed you that these themes come up quite a lot. To see my point, it would be enough to just notice how often we use the modal verb "can" to talk about ourselves, our relationships, and multiple non-social aspects of the world.
It is one thing to take the concept of power and explore its meanings, and another one to start noticing when we talk about power without even using the word. For example, we saw that the words “can” and "possible," which are directly related to power (both semantically and etymologically) are an inseparable part of our everyday communication. I hope this page made you wonder how often we talk and think about power without naming it (i.e., without using the actual word). And because I am primarily interested in exploring people and their relationships my next question will be: What are some of the important ways we talk about social power without naming it? And perhaps also, What are some assumptions that might be hiding in our conversations about social power (whether we name it or not)?
So, to remind you, I asked myself this question: Why do people talk about power as related to themselves, but also to many other aspects of their world? Using my conclusion (made here) that when people talk about power, they often talk about abilities and influences, I suggested that people are perpetually preoccupied with abilities and influences. They think about them, they talk about them, they want to understand them, and sometimes to challenge them (e.g., I want to be able to do more than I currently can; I want this other person not to have the impact that she currently does; etc.). Not only are human beings preoccupied with abilities and influences when it comes to them; they apply the same kind of interest and concerns to many other aspects and elements of the world they live in. To check whether I am on the right track with this reasoning, I suggested considering how often the themes of abilities and influences come up in human communication and culture. And I showed you that these themes come up quite a lot. To see my point, it would be enough to just notice how often we use the modal verb "can" to talk about ourselves, our relationships, and multiple non-social aspects of the world.
It is one thing to take the concept of power and explore its meanings, and another one to start noticing when we talk about power without even using the word. For example, we saw that the words “can” and "possible," which are directly related to power (both semantically and etymologically) are an inseparable part of our everyday communication. I hope this page made you wonder how often we talk and think about power without naming it (i.e., without using the actual word). And because I am primarily interested in exploring people and their relationships my next question will be: What are some of the important ways we talk about social power without naming it? And perhaps also, What are some assumptions that might be hiding in our conversations about social power (whether we name it or not)?