Some Problems in Defining Social Power Author(s): Dennis H. Wrong Source: The American Journal of Sociology, Vol.

73, No. 6 (May, 1968), pp. 673-681 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2775773 Accessed: 20/09/2010 02:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

in Some Problems Defining Social Power1

DennisH. Wrong

ABSTRACT To define as power powerrelations completely asymmetricalto overlook is intercursive in actors in relations which control others somescopes in and are controlled them other by In the an scopes. integral powerrelations, powerholder retains irreducible autonomy, but thansohispower be negatively can limited various in ways.Poweris a narrower concept cial control. should limited intended successful of such It be to and control others, although intentional unintended control well.Whenpoweris deas control clearly permits greater is fined a "capacity," maybe either as it actualor potential. Potential power, however, not in as which thecase ofgroups socialmobilithesamething merely possible power, requires zationto become bothactualand potential.
ASYMMETRY AND BALANCE IN POWER RELATIONS

social The initial problemof defining as its poweris to recognize special features without kindof social relation a particular to whatit continues sharewith minimizing mutual People exercise all social relations. beoverone another's and influence control that fact, in havior all socialinteraction-in Powis whatwe meanby socialinteraction. in are asymmetrical that the er relations over control greater powerholderexercises of thebehavior thepowersubjectthanthe of reverse,but reciprocity influence-the itof criterion the social relation defining exceptin destroyed self-is neverentirely alwhich, of thoseforms physicalviolence thoughdirectedagainst a human being, treathim as no morethan a physicalobof The asymmetry power relationsis to often stressed a degreethatwouldmake to it logicallycontradictory speak of "bior lateral"powerrelations of "equalityof power" in bargainingor conflict.Thus
1 This is a revisedversionof a paper read at the 1965 annual meetingof the AmericanSociological Association. 2 See Georg Simmel, The Sociology of Georg Simmel, trans. and ed. Kurt H. Wolff (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1950), pp. 181-82.

ject.2

is and Mills write:"When everyone Gerth equal thereis no politics,forpoliticsinAnd and superiors."3 volves subordinates Peter Blau maintainsthat "interdependof influence equal strength enceand mutual indicatelack of power."4Such assertions powerrelariskgoing too far in severing tionsfromtheirrootsin social interaction of The form. asymmetry power in itsgeneric in is relations at least immanent the"givebetween and-take" of dyadic interaction equals, in whichthe controlof one actor over the other'sbehavioris reciprocated on act by a responsive of control the part in exists each indiAsymmetry oftheother. sequence,but the acvidual act-response the alternate rolesofpower torscontinually subjectin thetotalcourse and power holder In interaction. a stablesocial relaof their interaction tion (wherethereis recurrent thaninteraction the between partiesrather to confined a single occasion) a pattern the in mayemerge whichone actorcontrols situations otherwithrespectto particular of and spheres conduct-or scopes,as they acbeen called-while theother have often
Mills, Character 3Hans Gerthand C. Wright and Social Structure(New York: Harcourt, Brace,1953),p. 193. 1PeterBlau,Exchange Powerin SocialLife and & Wiley Sons,1964),p. 118. (New York: John

673

674

THE AMERICAN OF JOURNAL SOCIOLOGY

areas of cursive in dominant other powerrelations. toris regularly Thus a wifemay rule in Integral power alwaysraisesthequestion situatedactivity. the kitchen,while her husband controls quis custodiet ipsos custodies?-or who income.Or a rulestherulers, overof guardstheguardians, the disposition the family of as laborunion, in theunions seamenand sees theoverseers? behind The assumption controlshiring,while the thequeryis thattherulers' powerto decide longshoremen, dictates the time and place of at theirown discretion employer cannotbe entirely in work. eliminated humansocieties. "Powercanas powerrelations exclu- not be dissolved into law," as Franz NeuThus ifwe treat we and sivelyhierarchical unilateral, over- mann observed7 and the liberal slogan, look an entireclass of relationsbetween "a government laws, not of men,"is, if of of takenliterally, personsor groupsin whichthe control expressing a mereideology of power.Thus whereinone personor group over the otherwith mistrust political scope is balanced tegralpoweris established to reference a particular and recognized by the controlof the otherin a differentas unavoidablein at least some situations scope. The divisionof scopes betweenthe (or scopes), as in thecase of thepowerof partiesis oftenthe resultof a bargaining thestatein modern to times, attempts limit processwhichmay or may not have fol- it takea form other thanthatof transformfor lowedan open struggle power-a sepa- ingintegral powpower intoan intercursive a rationin a marriage, strikeagainstan er system. Integral powermaybe restricted rivalry, without a employer, lawsuitin commercial eitherreducingthe decision-maknations. or ingautonomy thepowerholder counof a warbetween power has been tervailing by givingotherspower over The termintercursive it characterized a him with reference particularscopes. by for to suggested relations balance of powerand a divisionof scopes Measuresdesignedto limitintegral power with includeperiodicreviews the acts of the It the between parties.5 is contrasted of integralpower in which decision making powerholder (legislativeand judicial reand view),periodic to and initiatives actionare centralized of his reaffirmations powerby monopolized one partyalone. Intercur- holdingstatusor his removaland replacesive powerexistswherethepowerof each ment (rulesof tenure and succession),the is by setting limitsto the scopes he can conpartyin a relationship countervailed of for withprocedures bar- trolor to therangeof optionsavailable to thatof the other, governing him withineach scope ("civil liberties"), or gaining joint decisionmaking the and rights appeal and petition affecting when matters theirrelations of concernof goals and interests both are involved. inggrievances. Riesman's notion of a balance of veto effective If suchmeasures to be truly are from and not just windowdressing, the imthe each able to prevent others groups, like a constitutes pressiveconstitutions its acts threatening interests, createdby so many powerrela. absolute dictatorships recent history, of system intercursive negative in of The variousconceptions "plural- there tions.6 of mustbe sources powerindependent and politi- of the integralpowerholder that can be sociology ism" in contemporary of cal scienceare modelsof systems inter- mobilizedto enforce them.The law must as be a web thatcatchesthelawmaker well I This distinction by was formulated Theodor makingthis a in- as his subjects.Conditions I to See Geiger. thediscussion, which am much of the mayinclude separation execuand by debted, J.A. A. Van Doorn,"Sociology the reality I Problemof Power," Sociologia Neerlandica, tive,legislative, and judicialpowerswithin 1962-63),16-18. (Winter, the government itself,the creationof difThe and others, LonelyCrowd 6David Riesman I FranzNeumann, and TheDemocratic AuthoriPress,1950), pp. (New Haven: Yale University tarianState (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957), p. 7. 244-55.

SOME PROBLEMS DEFININGSOCIAL POWER IN

675

levels of govern- revolution, the legallyregulated ferent and independent or compestates,dividedrather tition electoral mentas in federative of contests. societyat large, eliteswithin than unified Such devicesas the initiative, referthe supportforconsti- endum, strong and impeachment ballot,as well by and, ultimately, "unwrit- as theconception elections mandates, guarantees traditional or tutional of as on ten" rights and liberties thepart of the are established ways in whichsubjectsexmust ercisecountervailing words, there powerover theirrulpowersubjects.In other of power power centersable ers. The transformation integral be real countervailing power, however, never can limitson thepowerof the inte- intointercursive to enforce in gral powerholder,and, insofaras this is be complete the case of modernstates integral between intercur- insofaras thereis an irreducibly the required, distinction in poweris not an absolute element politicalpower that cannotbe sive and integral altogether.9 Bills of rights, conpower,how- eliminated one. The checkson integral ever,are largelynegative.To quote Neu- stitutional guarantees, jurisdictional restriclegal concep- tions,and statutory man again: "All traditional limitson the options tionsare negativeones. They limitactivi- available to the political decision maker the ties but do not shape them.It is thisvery are ways of checking integral powerof to of character law whichgrants thecitizen the state without eliminating altogether it the ruler of any scopes in a minimum protection."8 of by depriving pow- whichhe can decide and act according to Thereare four broadwaysin which The removal certain of to ersubjects mayattempt combator resist his owndiscretion. areas of choiceby powersubthepowerof an integral powerholder: (1) substantive countervailingjects from any control the state-such by theymay striveto exercise his as the"basic" freedoms speech, of powerover him in orderto transform religion, of integral powerintoa system intercursive assembly, of etc.-has theeffect residence, the powerof the state power; (2) theymay set limitsto the ex- eliminating integral of subjects), in theseareas, even though totalelimi(the tensiveness number power the of alternative (the comprehensiveness number scopes), nationofstatepower-the third realand intensity (the rangeof optionswithin above-has neverbeen permanently scopes) of his power; (3) they ized in any civilizedsociety. (It has, of particular as been thegoal of anarchism a popoweraltogether, course, his may destroy integral the controlled open liticalmovement.) leaving acts he formerly It is misleading, to therefore, contend to free and self-determined choice; (4) for that "all politicsis a struggle power." himby acquirtheymay seek to supplant of his powerthem- The subjectsor victims powermayseek ingand exercising integral to replace the powerholderbecause they selves. to With reference the integral powerof envyhimand wishto use his powerin the or theirterritorial juris- serviceof theirown goals and interests, modern stateswithin and becausetheyare vengeful wishto puncorrethe threealternatives dictions, first them. But efforts to ishhimas he mayhavepunished spond roughlyto, respectively, alternatively theymay wish to freethemconstitudemocratic government, establish from control his overthem by of selvesmerely and the elimination tionalgovernment, his power and enor limiting abolishing The first or all government, anarchy. two, ownrangeof free choice.Politheir been combined larging of course,have frequently for botha struggle powerand ticsincludes The fourth alternaas a politicalobjective. to corresponds the different 9Ibid.,pp. 257-69.Neumann tiveobviously out points thatit thatintegral power("thepolitpolicy suchas putsch, is in foreign of forms political succession,
8Ibid., p. 17.

reand absolutely without "prevails ical element") gardforLaw" (p. 259).

676

OF THE AMERICAN JOURNAL SOCIOLOGY

to exercised thegroupoversocialand escape from controls a struggle limit, by resist, from ized individuals efpower. direct, intentional forts a specific or by to person group control POWER AND SOCIAL CONTROL In another. contrast severalrecent to writor If theline between intercursive bilat- ers,I do notsee howwe can avoid restrict"power"to intentional efand and the symmetrical ingtheterm eral power relations controlby particular agents-"the of give-and-take mostinformal socialinter- fective of effects somemen by to actionis sometimes difficult draw,so is production intended Bertrand the of theline between exercise powerand on othermen,"to adapt slightly definition power.12 of in social control general.If normsare the Russell'swell-known acknowledged intenthat prevailing rulesof conductin a groupen- It maybe readily to others oftenproforcedby positiveor negativesanctions, tionalefforts influence as effects so- duce unintended well as intended thendoes not all normatively regulated behavior-a dominating overand cial behaviorinvolvepower exercisedby on their mother does not intendto femthegroupor community theindividu- protective over to al? Individuals, be sure,undergo proc- ininize the characterof her son. But all a produces suchunintended in ess of socialization the courseof which socialinteraction his theyinternalize manygroupnorms.When effects-amandoes notmeanto plunge her social controls have been internalized, the wifeintodespairby greeting somewhat in nor concept of power is clearly inapplicable, distractedly theevening, doesa wombut to assume that most conformity an mean to arousea man's sexual interest to to normsis the resultof internalization to by payingpoliteattention his conversais others adopt what I have elsewherecalled an tionat a cocktailparty.The effects by "oversocialized of conception man.'0 More- have on us, unintended and even unto mayinfluence moreprous overthechild known them, over,thepowerof theparent and than efforts precedesthe child's internalization pa- foundly permanently direct of and behavior. rentalrules; thechild'ssuperego formed to controlour sentiments is with whose Dahl and Lindblomcall such unintended by his identification theparents "spontaneousfieldcontrol"and commandsthe child eventuallyissues to influence distinguish from it forms delibof himself without reference theiroriginal sharply to external source.Submission poweris the eratecontrol.'3 to But the distinction betweenintentional earliestand most formative experience in effects othersmay on human life. As R. G. Collingwood(no and unintentional Freudian, thebestofmyknowledge) to put seem to be a hairsplitting unrealistic and it: "A manis borna redand wrinkled lump 'Russell's definition from is Bertrand Russell, of flesh havingno will of its own at all, Power: A New Social Analysis (London: George at of absolutely the mercy the parentsby Allen& Unwin, 1938),p. 25. Recentwriters who whoseconspiracy has been brought he into have defined powerin such a way as to include effects others Van Doorn,op. on are existence. That is whatno scienceofhuman unintended cit. (see n. 5 above), p. 12; and FelixE. Oppencommunity . . mustever forget."" . heim, Dimensions Freedom:An Analysis of (New But to collapsetheconcept power of into York: St. Martin's Press,1961),pp. 92-95.Howthat of social control obviously is unsatis- ever, writers haveeither who implicitly explicitor the and power theintentional factory vitiatesall needfora separate lyrestricted term to coninclude Max Weber, EdwardShils conceDt.We must distinguish diffuse trolof others the
'Dennis H. Wrong, "The Oversocialized Conception Man in ModernSociology," of American Sociological Review, XXVI (April, 1961),183-93. U R. G. Collingwood, New Leviathan The (New York: Clarendon Press,1942), p. 176. and HerbertGoldhamer, Harold Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan, Talcott Parsons, Raymond Aron, Arnold and Rose. RobertA. Dahl and Charles PoliLindblom, tics, and Welfare Economics (New York: Harper & Bros.,1953),pp. 99-104.

IN SOME PROBLEMS DEFININGSOCIAL POWER one.Does nottheelephant whodanceswith exercisea powerof life and the chickens eventhough has no wish he deathoverthem to trample them Do underfoot? nottheacts of governments today shape and destroy thelivesof millions eventhough theseoutcomesin nowaywereintended evenforeor seenby shortsighted statesmen? rather Yet thanequate powerwithall forms influof ence, unintended well as intended, as it seemspreferable stressthefactthatthe to intentional control others likelytocreof is in the ate a relationship which power holder exercises unintendedinfluenceover the powersubjectthatgoes farbeyond whathe mayhavewished envisaged theoutset. or at To revert a previous to example:it is only because a motherexercises socially approved power over her childrenthat she may unintentionally shape theirpersonalities along lines that are repugnant her to and defeat mostcherished her hopes.So to confine term the of "power"to theexercise intentional controlis not to make power less important pervasive history in and and so society, longas it is recognized powthat er overothers providesthe most favorable settingforaffecting theirlives in myriad the intenwaystranscending power holder's tion. The studyof the unintended consequencesof social actionmaywell be one of themajortasksof thesocial sciences,14but thisdoes notpreclude necessity carethe of fullydistinguishing between that outcomes are intended and thosethatare not.

677

in moment processof doingor undergoing but anything, thathe is able to do certain when theneed arises,or thathe is things, proneto do and feelcertain things situain tions of certainsorts."'15 Ryle calls verbs such as "to know,""to aspire," and "to possess" dispositional words that referto of recurrent tendencies humanbeings beto have in certainways, in contrastto the episodicwordswe employto refer speto events.The distinction cificbehavioral between "having power"and "exercising power" reflects difference the betweenviewing poweras a dispositional as an episodic and concept."' Unfortunately, power lacks a whichin partaccountsforthe verb form, frequent tendency see it as a mysterious to property agencyresident the person or in or groupto whomit is attributed. use The of such terms "influence" as and control," which bothnounsand verbs, virtual are as for synonyms power,represents effort an (not necessarily fullyconscious) to avoid the suggestion that power is a property rather thana relation.'7 The evidence thata person group or possessesthecapacityto control others maybe thefrequency whichsuccessful of with acts control have been carriedout in the past. Or power to maybe imputed an actorwhen the probability his intending achieve of to and effectively controlover anachieving otheractor is rated high,even though he may not have previously exercisedsuch control. forA's poweroverB to be real But B whenit is notactually exercised, mustbe POWER AS ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL convincedof A's capacity to controlhim his accordingly. Poweris usuallydefined a capacityto and mustmodify behavior as has power over her child control others. Yet thecapacityto perform Thus a mother from doingsomeactsofcontrol their and actualperformance when the child refrains in of even are clearly thesame thing;powerwhen thing anticipation herdispleasure not is of thought as a capacityis a dispositional whenthe mother not presentto issue a the prohibition. Similarly, President concept. What Gilbert Ryle says about specific "knowing" and "aspiring"also applies to 'Gilbert Ryle, The Conceptof Mind (New powerconceived as a capacityto control York: Barnes& Noble,1949),p. 116. of others:"To say thata person knowssome6 See the fulldiscussion thisdistinction of by thing, nottosay thathe is at a particular Oppenheim, cit.(see n. 12 above),pp. 100-102. is op.
7 See the discussion thisdistinction Van '1 Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social of by Structure (Glencoe, III.: Free Press,1957),p. 68. Doorn,op. cit.(see n. 5 above), pp. 8-10.

678

THE AMERICAN OF JOURNAL SOCIOLOGY

and Society, "' Max Weber, Law in Economy On Van Doorn,op. cit.(see n. 5 above),p. 9. trans. by ed. andannoted Max Rheinstein, Edward Mass.: (Cambridge, Shils and Max Rheinstein Powerand Community W. Polsby, 2' See Nelson Press, 1954),pp. 322-30. University Harvard PoliticalTheory(New Haven,Conn.: Yale UniA. Press,1963),pp. 47-53; Robert Dahl in 19Arnold M. Rose notesthatmanysocialscien- versity al- WilliamV. D'Antonioand Howard I. Ehrlich without takenthisposition in effect tistshave (Notre in to themselves itsim- (eds.), Powerand Democracy America committing waysconsistently of Political Dame, Ind.: University Notre Dame Press, (Rose, The Power Structure: plications "ReputaWolfinger, Society[New York: Oxford 1961),pp. 101-4; Raymond in Process American tion and Realityin the Study of Community Press,1967],pp. 44-50). University XXV (OcReview, Sociological American Power," 1960),636-44. tober, 2' Ibid.,pp. 47-48.

has poweroverCongress whencongression- rarelyrightat the elbow of the decision al leadersdecide to shelvea bill in antici- maker.) Those who prefer equate powerwith to veto. pationof a presidential Max Weber's conceptionof power as its actual exercisein a social relationship that "the probability thatone actorin a social fearthesubjectivity appearsto be imout relationship . . . carry his ownwill" plicitin the view that actorsmay "have" will without exercising so longas belief it mustbe interpreted attributing esti- power the as of exercising limit of mateof probability thejudgment the in theprobability their to As powersubject.18 Otherwise, onlyovertacts its thechoicesof others. I have already treating poweras a capacity runs ofcontrol thesubsequent or of imposition a indicated, of sanctionafterthe performance an un- theinitialriskof seeingit as vestedtoo exin where controlled freeact will validatean im- clusively the powerholder"from or to But putationof power made by an observer, it radiates others."'21 oncewe correct by that say a sociologist, and the distinction be- thispossibleoveremphasis insisting tween power potential as actualloses power is always a relationbetweentwo as and The unexpected relevance. intervention actors, we notthenriskgoingto theopof do A or his imposition a sanctionmay,of positeextreme making dependent of of enit of on course, establish credibility hispower tirely whatis in themindof thepower the withrespect B's future to without subject? Are we not in effect behavior sayingthat thenecessity overtacts of control A. someone's of by beliefthatsomeone has powelse When poweris regarded a capacity, er actually conferspower on the latter? as therefore, distinction the between potential Advocates theso-calleddecisional of methand actual is inherent its verydefini- od ofstudying in community powerstructures tion.19 Yet even when empiricalstudents have leveledthisaccusationat researchers ofpoweradvancetheusual definition, they who have used the "reputationalmethmethit of frequently ignore in practice treating od."22Defenders thereputational by of thattheattribution powpoweras identicalwithits actual exercise od have replied and confining to it themselves its manifesta- er to someone mayindeedconfer on him. tions action.20 in in if Actualparticipation de- However, thiswerealwaysthecase,popof about thedistribution power cisionmaking observed or "initiation in- ular beliefs of for teraction others"becomesthe criterion would neverbe false. Since it is doubtful method of power.Poweris thusseen as a typeof that the users of the reputational makeso extreme claim, a social behaviorthat can be directlyob- wouldthemselves to necessary studytheactual servedand unambiguously identified. (Fre- it is obviously the of exercise powerto confirm disprove or of quently, course, acts of powermayhave for reputations powerrevealedby opinion tobe retrospectively reconstructed: obThe methof Supporters thedecisional server, leastwhere at institutionalized pow- surveys. have oftenrecoiledso vigorod, however, er relations between groups involved, are is that reputation ously fromthe suggestion

SOME PROBLEMS DEFININGSOCIAL POWER IN

679

' Robert Dahl, WhoGoverns? A. (New Haven, 'Raymond Aron,"Macht,Power,Puissance: Conn.: Yale University Press,1961), pp. 271-75. prosedemocratique poesiedemoniaque?" ou Archives de Europeennes Somiologie, (1964),27-33. 26Ibid., 271. p. V

for power is equivalentto having power tunately, this terminological distinction thattheyhave fallenback on narrowly be- does not existin English,but the idea of havioristic definitions, equating powerwith "potential"shouldbe regarded implicit as its observable in all non-behavioristic exercise. definitions treat that Yet to avoid sucha suggestion, need poweras in some sense a capacitydistinone onlyrepeatthelineofreasoning followed in guishablefromits overt exercise.Robert the inference power Bierstedt correct maintaining "it is in that correcting opposite that is a kind of force emanatingfrom the may seemredundant say so, but power to powerholder.If an actoris believedto be is alwayspotential," although equation his powerful, he knowsthatothers if holdsuch of powerwithabilityto imposesanctions a belief, ifhe encourages and resolves ultimately it and reducible physical to force too is to makeuse of it by intervening or pun- narrowa conception.24 term"latent" in The ishingactions by the otherswho do not as a modifier poweris perhaps of preferable complywithhis wishes,thenhe trulyhas to "potential" suggesting covert in the prespowerand his powerhas indeedbeen con- enceofsomething contrast theweaker in to ferred upon him by the attributions, per- implication "potential"that something of haps initially without foundation, others. mayassertits presence of underpurely hypoBut ifhe is unaware thatothers believehim thetical conditions. powerful, if he does not take their or belief This weaker implication has been the in seriously planning ownprojects, his then source of muchconceptualconfusion, enhe has no powerand thebeliefthathe has couraging failureto distinguish a between is mistaken, misperception reality. a of We potential poweras an aspect of all power wouldnotsay thattheresidents a street and merely of possiblepower.The notionof had powerovera manwithparanoiddelu- poweras a "potential" often in is employed sions who refusedto leave his house be- a different sense,a sense that stressesthe cause he fearedattack by his neighbors. hypothetical possibility control of overothNor wouldwe say thattheAmerican Com- ers ratherthan the estimateby othersof munist partyactuallyhas greatpowerbe- theprobability such control choosing in of cause a certainsegment the public,in- theirowncoursesof action.Dahl's distincof fluenced right-wing by ideologists, believes tionbetween possession politicalreof the thisto be thecase. sourcesand theiractual use is not simply Aronhas pointedout thatthe Raymond anotherversionof the actual-potential diEnglishand German languagesemploythe mension, I have statedit.25 WhenDahl as sameterms, powerand Macht,respectively, man maycolto refer both to the capacityto do some- pointsout that"one wealthy lect paintings;anothermay collectpolitithingand to the actual exercise the caof we to pacity.23 French, In there two cians,"26 are not entitled ascribepohowever, are powerto the richart collector:He distinct words:puissance, indicating poten- tential possitial orcapacity, and pouvoir, indicating the possessesno morethan the abstract bilityof powershouldhe decide to make act. While the prevailingusage of both Likeuse resources. terms,accordingto Aron,has tended to different ofhisfinancial blur this distinction betweenthemand to wise, the Y familyin Muncie possessed possiblepower,whereasthe power create new, less meaningful distinctions, merely Aron argues that puissanceshould be re24 Robert Bierstedt, "An Analysisof Social garded as the more general concept of Power,"American Sociological Review, XV (Dewhichpouvoiris a particular form. Unfor- cember, 1950),735.

680

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL SOCIOLOGY OF

class a action from common was of theX family bothactualand poten- of communal tial.27 will situation"29 takeplace (Weber), when betweenthe possession the resource superior will lead Dahl's contrast numbers of fails to bringout to the mobilization a majority check to of and theuse of resources power of the operationof Michels' "iron law of fully the merelyhypothetical because he oligarchy," when any aggregate inof or those who possess resources, of will perceive discussesthe resources individu- dividualswith like interests chiefly interests (MacIver) and becommon als ratherthanof social groupsor catego- their ample political come an organizedpower-seeking group. ries. If someonepossessing betweenposis resources widelybelievedto be powerful To ignorethe disjunction even thoughhe does not in fact use his sible powerand realizedpower,both actuin is resourcesfor political ends, he may on al and potential, a classic error politifor of bothin the crude learning his reputation powerresolve cal analysis, one evident He from politically. wouldthen "conspiracy it theories history" propagated of to profit for by demagogues elitistinand in scholarly becomea case in whichthe reputation Its of powerled to the eventualpossessionand terpretations thesocialorder. essence inpowerto Jews,bankers, of exercise power.Since thesimpledecision is to attribute from terlocking his bureaucorporatedirectorates, to ofan individual divert resources to bemay suffice translate crats,labor bosses,or even professors, one use to another arguedthatthese his possiblepowerintoreal power,thedis- cause it can be plausibly tinctionbetweenpower as potentialand groupscould exercisegreatpowerif they or, shareda for potential power,28 in theterminologywerecohesiveand theirmembers latentpowerand possible commonpoliticalaim. The fact that this I prefer, between of whenthe resources an may not be the case, or that it is true to power,is blurred in only a limiteddegree,is ignoredor supBy individualare considered. contrast, the pressed.("If only the bankerswould conthe case of social groupsor categories, commongoals, spire,"Keynesis alleged to have once reof achievement solidarity, is and social organization, leadership neces- marked.) as Sociologists, well as the people they possiblepowerintorealized saryto convert beliefthata group, study,may mistakenly attribute powerto power.The widespread possibleand bureaucrats, groups whosepoweris merely say, bankers or government confer wherea longprocessof social mobilization by cannotpossibly itself is powerful wouldhave to takeplace poweron thegroupif it is in factunorgan- and indoctrination goals and in- beforeit could become a reality.Insofar ized and lackingin common The among as sociologistshave assumed that some of terests. study powerrelations task forpoliti- groupsin society,for example,the upper groupsis a moreimportant of are thantheidentification pow- classes or the "economicdominants," cal sociology It becauseit seemsobviousthatthey erfulindividuals. is surelyone of the powerful to weretheyso disposed, others maingoals of politicalsociology specify could control underwhichgroups thereis justice in some of the criticisms conditions thevariable to social organization be- thathave beendirected achievesufficient againstsociological for contenders power-when approaches thestudy community comeeffective of to powa Klasse an sick will becomea Klasse fur er whichseek to locate the ultimate seats sickpossessedof full"class consciousness" of powerin the groupstructure society of (Marx), when"the rise of societalor even rather thanin formal politicalinstitutions.
town in Transition (New York: Harcourt, Brace,

S. 7Robert Lyndand HelenM. Lynd,Middle-

1937),p. 91. ' Rose,op. cit.(see n. 19 above),p. 47.

"Class,Status,Party,"in From 'Max Weber, trans.and ed. Max Weber:Essays in Sociology, Mills (New York: Oxand Hans Gerth C. Wright Press, 1946),p. 183. ford University

SOME PROBLEMS DEFININGSOCIAL POWER IN

681

Andinsofar sociologists as haveuncritically taining thatonlyovertbehavior constitutes acceptedthepossibly mistaken attributions power.Such an approachignoresWeber's thatsociety a system meanis of of powerput forward their by respondents, insistence ings as well as of interacting personsand there justicein manyof thecriticisms is of us and surface of the reputational method.But nothingis confines to theappearance in reacting theseerrors deny- sociallife. gained to by ing theexistence latentpowerand main- NEW YORK UNIVERSITY of