“CONTROL”
YOUR GUIDE TO DECODING THE SUBTLETY OF POWER GAMES.
Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires. — THE PRINCE, Niccolo Machiavelli, 1469–1527
Everyone wants power. Everyone wants more power. No one wants less. But, some people have more power than others is one of the most undeniable truths of our time. This makes the concept of power perhaps one of the most “ubiquitous” yet misunderstood social theories existing today.
Have you ever felt like the world is a manipulative and duplicitous playground where everyone is executing their scheming designs to outplay one another? Do you feel trapped inside of it? Have you had enough to make you want to exit the playground? Let’s face it, we do not want to quit this game. That would make us powerless and miserable. We would rather become adept at playing these games.
We live in a time where power-hungry motives manifested through overt power moves can be far too dangerous. The current power game seems fair and decent, civilized and democratic yet it’s laden with subtle and devious plans which call for you to jump right into its complex web to decode its artful nuances so that you don’t fall prey to it.
POWER-OVER: The three faces of the power debate
The power debate as deconstructed by the three different scholars finds one similarity; the shared conceptualisation of power as “power over” or “power as a source of restraint and constraint”. (Jasinski 446). Manifested in negative forms such as domination, oppression, coercion and force, this kind of power threatens human liberty.
While it is no doubt the time of “indirect duplicity” established by seducing, alluring and skilfully outsmarting your opponent, some power relationships are explicit and observable.
BEHAVIOURAL MODEL OF POWER
Robert Dahl’s “behavioural” model of power explains power as a relational phenomenon where one person is in a position to dominate the will of the other person and uses this position to serve his vested interests. Relationships of this kind would include that between a teacher and a student, an employer and an employee. (Jasinski 443)
In such a scenario, power is played out when there is an “observable” and “explicit attempt by A to cause B to do what A intends but what B would otherwise not do. Dahl’s “intuitive” definition of power relies on an underlying base, source or domain of power that gives A the authority to control the decision-making capacity of B.
This brings us to the question- how does A get B to do what A intends but B is unwilling to? How is this oppressive game of power carried out? The answer is, through A’s speech act of the “COMMAND”. (Jasinski 443)
Consider when Donald Trump through a tweet, ordered the U.S Air Force to “cancel” the order of a Boeing Aircraft on account of its spiralling costs. The defence industry, fearing Trump’s bullying and suing attitude, immediately obeyed his order and reduced costs by handing down the contract to a bankrupt Russian Airline company.
Even the “big” players are not immune from the wrath of the POTUS for when he commanded General Motors and Toyota to keep manufacturing facilities in the U.S.A by attacking them with threats of a big border tax, the companies immediately changed their business plans.
It is also not unusual to see that Trump, drawing power from his esteemed position as POTUS has often attempted to implement a “command-obedience” foreign policy which lacks the nuances of diplomacy and has been criticised for utilising only “one face of power”.
But does this definition take into account strategies that are designed to serve the same purpose while disguising the nature of manipulation? Is the command that is obeyed the “only” way in which power is exercised?
What if we cannot see “observable” conflict between A & B although it exists? What if we cannot see A dictating or commanding B’s behaviour? Can we then conclude that there was no power relationship apparent in the situation?
TWO FACES OF POWER
Bachrach and Baratz (1962) in “Two faces of power” while accepting the theory propounded by Robert Dahl explained that there’s a second face of power which is displayed when certain individuals are able to control communication so as to shape the political agenda and influence decision making by eliminating issues that might threaten the party’s individual interests, thus limiting the scope of decision-making. (Jasinski 444)
Consider, for example, the case of Narendra Modi whose rise to power featured his distinct oratorical style. A look at his discourse would clearly highlight the themes that he considers critical to his political agenda and which he seeks to reinforce through his speech by weaving public opinion around it. At an election rally, he uses rhetoric to appeal to the common man, at a business conclave, he channels his business know-how.
His 2018 Independence Day speech mentioned the word “garib” 39 times. The word “youth” was mentioned 9 times. The word “corruption” was mentioned 3 times. Contrast this to his speech in 2014 where newly finding himself as the Prime Minister and in an effort to appease the discontented youth, one of his major vote banks, the word “youth” coupled with “employment” was mentioned 27 times and “corruption”, 19 times.
Neither is coalition politics in India far from this truth. In the promise of cabinet portfolios, often the allied minority parties are bound by the “whip” of the majoritarian rule and are prevented from the public airing of grievances against an issue which perhaps they do not concur with. When it comes to the opposition, the manifestation of power in “non-decisions” is even more profound as the majority party by virtue of its position keeps at bay any issue that may affect the welfare of the other from coming up for “political decision”. The majority dictates who is at the table, it dictates which issues can be raised.
This bring us to the question-Is “actual observable conflict” essential for power to exist or can power exist in isolation and distinct from its “continued association with conflict?”
Could there be a scenario where A exercises power over B by influencing, shaping or determining B’s very wants? (Jasinski 444)
POWER
Lukes (1974) in his monograph “Power” thinks yes because is it not the supreme and ultimate exercise of power to get another to have the very desires that you want them to have? (Jasinski 444)
What if by shaping people’s perceptions, cognitions and preferences you prevent them from having grievances in the first place? What if your influence has the power to force people to accept their role in the existing order of things because they see it as natural and unchangeable? (Jasinski 444)
Isn’t this form of oppression the most effective and insidious use of power, even without the existence of actual conflict?
In the arena of political decision making, consider the concept of “soft power” or the ability of a country to persuade the other to do what it wants without the use of force or coercion. The most commonly used power in foreign policy debates does not only yield short term gains but is effective in shaping long term attitudes and preferences.
At the Singapore Summit between Kim Jong-Un and Donald Trump last year, Trump, in an attempt to get North Korea to denuclearise its regime, famously used the notion of American “cultural references” as soft power to map out a possible future for North Korea which could only be realised with American help if North Korea reached a consensus with the US on the nuclear question. Releasing a Holywood-blockbuster styled trailer replete with US cultural influences like Basketball games, high tech manufacturing and American retail stores at the Summit, the US administration portrayed the vision of a “common” destiny between the US and North Korea with their “bonhomie” marking a new story of opportunity for the North Korean people.
Beyond explicit commands and acquiescent responses, can power be said to exist when people fail to recognize their own objective interests by being under the power of influence so much so that there is a genuine but uninformed consensus on the prevailing set of values?
It would be hard to say no because from this:
Is manifested:
Now that we have seen how discursive practices effect domination and oppression, can we train ourselves to unmask and reveal the ways in which discourse creates or enables social and political oppression so that we can guard ourselves from the treachery of deception? In what way can we inform our judgement?
So far, we have studied the use of rhetorical theory within the realm of it being used for deliberation of matters of public concern and discovery of available means of persuasion. ( Jasinski 117). But there’s another purpose of rhetoric where it can be used at the intersection of linguistics and social theory. Rhetoric, when used as a “critical practice”, critiques discourse to reveal the hidden manifestations of domination and oppression behind it.
Oppression and domination can be manifested through laws, customary social practices, economic relationships and physical action. (Jasinski 117) However, when used as a critical practice, rhetoric’s focus is only on the discourse of power which creates and sustains social practices that control the dominated.
How does it attempt to do that?
There are several modes through which discourse enables repressive power and functions to enact restriction and regulations as to who may talk and what may be talked about.
Consider the process of “hegemony”. It is the domination, influence, authority of one person/political group/society over others such that the dominant party acquires some degree of consent from the subordinate as opposed to dominance clearly by force so as to sustain its hegemony. By deconstructing the process of this discursive construction of hegemony or rather “hegemonic discourse”, rhetoric reveals the ways in which repression is manifested so as to create the conditions for our emancipation from it
Consider for example how “patriarchal” societies practice a hegemonic masculinist discourse manifested in our everyday conversations to sustain and perpetuate its dominance.
Watching the news on a daily basis, it would perhaps skip our attention to notice and uncover the subtle nuances sustaining the dominion of patriarchy but every time there is the media reportage of a case like Arushi Talwar which was apparently “solved” when it was discovered that the murder of the domestic help, Hemraj was said to have been committed by the father, who was as “characterless” as his daughter and who found her in an “objectionable” and “compromising” position or when the woman was supposedly the “object” and “trigger” of a rape crime, the gendered construction of discourse has the power to continue to allow a hegemonic patriarchal society to thrive.
A closer look at the matrimonial business which finds its legitimacy more often than not, in a stereotyped, myopic vision of a “troubled” father trying to find a suitable groom for his “most valuable possession”, the daughter so that she can be in “safe hands” is another clear example of how our innocent everyday discursive practices sustain the hegemony of a patriarchal society.
The political arena is no stranger to the exhibition of supremacy and dominance furthered through everyday discursive practices which shape these institutions. Consider Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign where a hegemonic discourse has constructed a “dominant” sense of one set of people which negative as it may be, surprisingly has the consensus of the majority of Americans.
Donald Trump wishes to build a wall on the US-Mexico border to counter the problem of illegal immigration and finds it the only “solution” to tackle the rampant trafficking of illegal drugs from the region which has resulted in “thousands of deaths”. In his words, the apparent, “invasion” of migrants from the US-Mexico border is a serious humanitarian crisis facing America that deserves immediate action.
A factual critique of the President’s speech featuring the following discourse would reveal that the most common way for traffickers to smuggle drugs is actually by hiding them in cars that drive through “official” border checkpoints in sharp contrast to what Trump said about “300 of their citizens being killed by heroin alone, 90% of which floods from across the southern border.”
Ironically enough, much to Trump’s dismay, even the “invasion” of illegal migrants has lessened with the US administration apprehending 310, 531 illegal migrants in the year 2018, its lowest figure since 1971. In fact, more often than not, illegal migrants enter “legally”, as data reveals that more than 600,000 people allowed by the US administration to enter the country legally via air or sea overstayed their visas and remained in the country at the end of the year. Data also reveals that Trump has an incorrigible habit of calling migrants who satisfy all legal requirements for “asylum” as “illegal migrants” who are a threat to American society.
This invisible manifestation of power which hides the fact that power is even at play finds resonance with the third face of power and is perhaps the most insidious and crippling. It acts within a person’s mind and creates an internalization of stereotypes, leading to internalised oppression. It skips our attention, it is that powerful. We are not averse from it but we have a choice against being influenced by it. We can teach ourselves to recognise and deconstruct hegemonic discourses through political education, conscientization and adopting a questioning attitude.
Trump’s speech can no longer be watched and allowed to be. We need to dissect it. Until its inconsistencies are revealed to throw light upon the multiple ways in which his speech has attempted to enact repressive and coercive power we can never truly be liberated citizens.
To show us how it's done, let’s take a look at this viral rant:
Works Cited
Greene, Robert, and Joost Elffers. The 48 Laws of Power. London: Profile, 2010. Print.
Jasinski, James. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2010. Print
Learn more by visiting
- https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/independence-day-speech-pm-narendra-modi-farmer-jobs-word-analysis-1314951-2018-08-15
- https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/narendra-modis-skills-in-presenting-lessons-to-learn/articleshow/37235683.
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/08/trump-fact-check-speech-immigration-border-security
- https://www.exchange4media.com/advertising-news/why-do-matrimony-ads-continue-to-present-a-stereotypedmyopic-vision-61747.html
- https://www.firstthings.com/article/1994/08/on-hegemonic-discourse
