Power and systems change

Power is one of those terms that is talked about a lot in relation to change and yet it is also one of the hardest concepts to get ones head around. It is something that means multiple things in the lived world. This short article hopes to help define and push our meaning of power so as to help us think about our strategies for cultivating systems change. It hopefully

‘brings to light what has remained until now the most hidden, the most occulated, the most deeply invested experience in the history of our culture — power relations.’ (Foucault)

Power — a contested concept. Where to start?

Any analysis of the idea of power begins with the statement that it is a contested idea there is very little agreement on what it means — and this is a good place to start — as power is intrinsically linked to how we see the world. As my exploration of power is in the context of systems we need to take a multi-dimensional view of power and look at four ways or layers

One-dimensional

This is a traditional view of power where A (person or group) holds the resources and therefore power over B and therefore can influence their behaviour. Power is seen as who makes decisions and can be understood as the conflicts that occur between A and B.

Two-dimensional

This view of power includes not only what can be seen but also what or who is unseen that is those who are not involved in the debate, decision making and agenda setting; who has been excluded.

Three-dimensional

What is not visible or conscious is added as the third dimension and is such a critique of the behavioural focus the two above. B is unaware of being excluded and therefore does not resist, this includes the power that is held in the collective narrative.

Four-dimensional

This looks at power beyond the negative, and sees it as power embedded in a web of social relations and its unintentional consequences.

So what?

So what do the different dimensions of power say about how transformation or systemic change might occur and the strategies we may take?

The main way we define power is in those that hold it and those that do not (us and them), and to overcome this power we might do the following:

- better information and knowledge leading to better decision making (ID)

- Include those who have been excluded (2D)

- Empowerment through mobilisation and participatory strategies (3D) — raising the consciousness of the power inequality and revealing the interests the current knowledge and power structure serve. [Democratic participation and consciousness raising at the individual and cultural levels]

All of these strategies are all important part of any change process however the fourth dimension of power helps us to expand our view and asks further questions about the approaches we might take. It assumes that the prevailing system — the pattern of how we organise and perceive the world — traps the advantaged and disadvantaged alike, and therefore reduces the chances or ability for systems change.

That is to say if we continue to see things in hierarchy — power as us and them — then we are trapped in this paradigm. The perspective we take, that is projected by our minds, if not systemic can hold us in these power dynamics.

So what of this more productive and relational view of power?

A possible redefinition of power is stripping in bare to be simply

the relational dynamics we live within in — the producing of energy between people, groups and our environment, our social network and process of discourse and communication.

It is therefore the way that we position ourselves in relationship and discourses we live by that determines the power.

‘Power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.…Power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor a possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society.’ (Foucault, 1976:93)

Take a moment to let that sink in — trust me I had to take several moments over many years to grasp this (and still not sure I fully can hold it). How does that change what you see and think of when you hear the word ‘power’?

By saying power is relational it is not saying that it is unproductive. Foucault is one of the few writers on power who recognise it is not necessarily a negative or coercive force, one that compels us to do things against our wishes, but can be a productive and positive force in society. Power can be enacted from within ourselves and offers the opportunity to influence and change social relations.

This power from within is shaped by our identity and self-conception of agency as well as by outside forces are held by ‘the other’. It is also shaped by how narratives and discourses are formed and how they shape our actions.

To affect change would then also include shifting the boundaries of how we identify ourselves. Cultivating systems change might be about broadening the boundaries of our current discourses and the way we see ourselves in the world. Thus creating an authorising environment for others to act whilst being conscious of the ethics of not causing harm and denying the rights of others whilst doing this.

One final point that might be the ultimate strategy to address issues of power. Concepts of power have changed through society’s history, how we see the relationship between people, what we define as the truth. Power as a concept is value dependent, it operates within a paradigm. To overcome power we must also then question the assumptions we have about the world and how it operates.

‘It is not so much ‘power’ that corrupts as the myth of ‘power’ (Bateson, 2002:20).

Would the ultimate power be to let go of our current or indeed any conception of power and recognise it is always likely to change. Can we keep an open perspective and break the myths and meanings of power itself? Can we break free from current systemic patterns of relationships even though we are embedded in them? Can we have agency, or productive power that expands our boundaries of meaning and creates new authorising environments for all?

This blog is edited from a chapter in my PhD — if you are interested in tracing references and origins of these ideas.