Concepts of power

Regarding concepts of power interplays between and among people, rather than, say, electricity.  What is power, and when does (or doesn't) someone have (or not have) power over others?

The power dynamic requires at least two people, as in concepts of leadership; one person cannot have influence over another if there is no "another."  A person can certainly have (or lack) power over themselves, but that does not automatically translate to power over others. 

Given this, lets assume one person has power over another person, regardless, for now, of how or why.  For ease of thought let's refer to one as the leader and the other the follower.  We can make some assumptions about the relationship--the follower will do as the leader wishes, for example.  Describing the pair in this way already has paradigm issues.  The follower is assumed to have a subordinate position to the leader, however the leader would have no power over the follower if the follower didn't "subordinate" themselves to leadership--therefore the follower has a great deal of power in his or her own right.  Such a great deal of power, in fact, that the leader would not be a leader without the follower.  As such, the source of power for the leader over the follower comes not from leadership, but from followship. 

Following a leader is a source of power, and it empowers both the leader and the follower.  The new paradigm of power, then, needs to incorporate the fact that power actually comes from subordinates or followers.

With this basic principle in mind, there is no means by which someone can have power over another without their approval or submission.  Submission may be coerced; is coercion power? 

I've noted over the years that the simple-minded among us are often confused between when someone has power over someone else, and when someone simply fears someone else.  The often used example is when someone holds a gun to your head.  The simple-minded (street thugs, for example) consider that the empowered offender holds power over the intended victim. . . but do they?

The victim may decide that the consequences of not submitting to power are too great (threat of loss of life being a compelling argument for submission).  If the victim is not afraid of death, however, that threat is empty.  Likewise if the gun is a toy, or the victim doesn't believe that the offender intends to follow through with the threat.  As such, the offender has no inborn or magical power over the victim, but must make a compelling case that the threat of imminent harm is real.

We can go further and say that the offender has no power at all, then, if the power lies in the threat of harm; how will the threat be conveyed?  In this example, through the use of a weapon, power is more accurately described as residing in the weapon and the threat of its use.  That relegates the offender to a mere catalyst that unleashes the power inherent in the weapon (and therefore the threat), and not a powerful person in his or her own right.  The power in the offender/victim dynamic resides in the weapon, not the person.

How do we know this?  If faced with a demand from an offender with a weapon, most people will likely comply; if the offender puts the weapon down, throws it away, or in some other way unarms themselves, compliance disappears when the threat disappears.

We must change the dominant paradigms of power, and recognize that power is granted by submission--and cannot be had with a gun.  Submission through coercion is not a power dynamic but fear dynamic, and where power resides in a coercive relationship, it never resides in the person who coerces.

What are the implications of this new power paradigm?