Talk:Power (social and political)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sociology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Colloquialism and Clean Up[edit]

Under the "Theories" header, I noticed a significant drop in writing quality. The tone is unprofessional as the article refers to "you" (13 times) and uses many contractions. This is just a notification for anybody interested in cleaning it up, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.171.15 (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Giddens[edit]

Giddens' is a "purely enabling (and voluntaristic) concept of power." Uhh, I don't think so. Whatever value one sees in Giddens' work, that's a pretty sweeping distortion.

zzoliche —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzoliche (talkcontribs) 08:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

ShannonCB (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)the characterization of Giddens' version of power as purely enabling is erroneous. He considers it both enabling and constraining and says so quite clearly on p. 15 of The Constitution of Society when he links power to the duality of structure.
Hi ShannonCB. Thanks for raising this again. Given that now two editors have the same validity concern, and I am skeptical that the content belongs in the at all, I am going to go ahead with removal. Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Mandarin Word for Power[edit]

I am a Mandarin speaker and the Mandarin word quoted in this article, "能力", actually means "ability" in many circumstances and the word "权力" is almost exclusively used to describe the English word "Power" in a sociological sense. The character "权" means "right" as in "the right to do something" and it contains an implication of power in itself. "力", meaning "force" or "power" in itself, is used to emphasize that the "right that is forceful or powerful". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.145.69 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Types and sources of power[edit]

it seems to me that this section has no other effect then to confuse the user. there are many more concepts of power types and sources not mentioned here, and they all relate to a certain theory. Hence, I think it would be wise to remove this section and concetrate on extending the 'theories of power' section, where we could maybe ad subsections 'types of power' and 'sources of power' identified in each theory. --Boszko2 09:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I came to precisely the same conclusion without reading this note, Boszko, and acted on it. I'm researching power relations in organizations for an MBA, and noticed both the duplication, and the slightly one-sided use of French&Raven. Have enriched a little. Adhib (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see Hannah Arendt's definition of power on the page as well. She separates strength (the forcing of people to do something) and power (the persuasion of people to do something or people, voluntarily, working together to get something done). -Jared

I disagree with Jared in that the general definition of power is useful in the introduction. I am all for a section that deals with varying and more specific definitions and thoughts about power. All of this, I firmly believe, should fall under the general definition of power. I am not opposed at all to the development of each following definition and branching off in varying directions; however, we risk watering down the entire article by giving up the general definition.\Agree with user: Boszko2. Section is confusing. Perhaps categorizing types of power with a discussion on the numerous and specific sources is in order. However if we have this in a section with theory only there will insufficient number of theories to cover all that is known about the specific sources. It is ideal to increase number of theories to match the known sources but we should probably provide information that is known than leave it out. Freedomofinformationforever (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC.

Merge[edit]

In the German page, the "bases of power" have already been integrated to the article on power.

I agree with the sugestion of merging the 2 articles about power. The ideas discussed are very similar.
Thanks

Pace?[edit]

what is meant by pace in "(pace advocates of empowerment)"? --Reagle 01:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Baudrillard and seduction theory[edit]

not bad, but what about mentioning w:Baudrillard and seduction theory as an alternative to power theories?

these theories ussualy refer to 'power of seduction', soit wouldn't make much sense to contrast these concepts in the way you propose - the point is that we (or some of us) are being less and less disciplined, so more seduction is needed to maintain existing power relations --Boszko2 09:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting theory. I hope it gets added as well as any research that has been done to validate it.Freedomofinformationforever (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Quote[edit]

I can't see how the above quote belongs in this article. It seems to me they should create their own article if they want to advertise/promote their organization.

"the creation in 1990 of a permanent coalition of progressive organizations — the ... is a coalition of labor and community organizations with broad demographic representation of the state." Jim 16:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Even if"?[edit]

In this first sentence,

Sociologists usually define power as the ability to impose one's will on others, even if those others resist in some way.

isn't the "even if..." part redundant? If not, why is it needed? --Ryguasu 03:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is the ghost of Weber -- or at least a paraphrase of his definition of power. The "even if" is critical, to point out that power often consists in the ability to get people to do what you want voluntarily (or at least without overt resistance). BrendanH 10:38, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
I have added a quote to make the point that Weber really lies behind the definition of power at the top of the article. I would like to incorporate a discussion of Weber's key role in the sociological analysis of power, but am far too rusty on the area.
I will remark in passing that the paragraph on Foucault is defective, in that the concepts described are not clearly about power, in that there is no mention of the beneficiary of the phenomenon (i.e. who holds the power inherent in taken-for-granted ideas) nor how they bring it about. BrendanH 16:42, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
I think this article is sorely missing Richard Emerson's 1962 article "Power-Dependence Relations" (American Sociological Review). Emerson defines power as a dyadic construct where my power over you equals your dependence on me, which is in turn dependent on the value I derive from the relationship and the replaceability of that value if that relationship is severed. Then he develops concepts crucial to understanding the power structure of a relationship. This was hugely influential, and if we're going to have sociological and philosophical concepts of power merged we really can't afford to omit it. 131.96.47.8 (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On Power Personified.[edit]

There is a delicious portrait of the very inner workings of power:

It is of Russian President Vladimir Putin and champion Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler Alexander Karelin.

Karelin towers over Putin in a protective posture while Putin shows a hovering glee.

The "pinnicle" of society "needs" the more "base" elements for its existence.

Find it at: [1]

--Scroll1 22:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The link no longer works.
75.3.254.126 (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My take (rational choice kindof)[edit]

I wrote this before reading the article. Now that I read it, it seems it's mostly the view of rational choice. Dunno this is useful to anyone:

Power in a given environment, is the ability to influence said environment according to one's own will. In an environment with conscious actors, power over them can exist in two forms:

1) In the ability to change that environment, such that actors in that environment will react to these changes in the interest of the powerful person. For example, money gives power: If somebody wants a bridge to be built and can change the environment by having enough money given to people who can build the bridge, they will build the bridge according to his/her will.

2) In the ability to change how actors percieve that environment. For example, moral authority gives power. If a religious leader wants a bridge to be built, he might be able to state that his deity wants his people to build said bridge. If people consider following that deity an authority, and believe the religious leader represents the deity, then they will try to build the bridge in question. The only relevant part of observable reality that has changed, are the attitudes of people reacting to a percieved change in their reality. Having this kind of influence, is what makes an act communication.

One could argue, that, as all will is determined by the environment of the actor, nobody has real power. Actors and the non-conscious environment can however not fully predict the influence they have. Thus they determine the actor fully, but not according to their own will. To have complete power, not only would one actor have to determine all behaviour of the others, but also have full knowledge of how he does it, how they will react.

influence + knowledge of that influence = power.

this equation is in fact the definition of power put forth by Dennis Wrong in his book Power and is the target of different criticisms. in my view the best of these critiques are found in Stewart Clegg's Circutis of Power. Also, you mention 'full power' - this is a notion that is disregarded by most contemporary theorists of power, mainly because of the broad consensus on the relatinal nature of power. --Boszko2 09:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

merge[edit]

The piece on bases of power simply sums up one perspective on the forms and sources of power - in fact, I think it does so somewhat unhelpfully, as it does not clearly distinguish between the two, and approaches them from what seems more a management-related than a sociological perspective. Galbraith's distinction between them and separation of each into Condign, Compensatory and Conditioned (forms) and Personality, Property, Organisation (sources) in his 'An Anatomy of Power' is probably more helpful.

__________________________________

ZERO-SUM POWER

Under feminism mention is made of “power over” versus “power to”. Isn’t “power to” referring to things while “power over” refers to people? Modern society’s - and therefore the average person’s - power over things is ever-increasing; power over people, which is here the subject under discussion (and also in the article on political power), must be a constant. Power must be a zero-sum game. This is obvious at election time where one side wins and other side dips out. (Or perhaps they share power, but whatever happens there is a certain amount of power going begging and that’s it; both sides can’t have full power.)

Since, at a given instant in a given territory, there is a certain fixed number of people, there is, in that territory, a fixed amount of power available to be allocated or grabbed.

Though these are statements of the bleeding obvious, no one seems to be stating them. The field marshal has certain powers over 100000 men. There can’t be two field marshals having the same powers over the same 100000. A second field marshal could only exercise the same powers if he has another 100000 men.

The captain has power over, say, 40 of the 100000. (Only one captain.) A sergeant-major also has power over the same 40. So the field marshal, the captain, and the sergeant-major has a bit of each soldier. That means power is partitioned within each soldier. There is only 100% of a soldier to be had and, unless he is a zombie, some of him must be left to him.

So, at some instant, or maybe on average: my boss has 40% of me, my wife has 30%, the kids have 15%, the dog has 3%, the passers-by in the street have 2%, the prime minister has 1%, the taxation department has 4% and what’s left is my power over myself. Or maybe I should not be regarded as an amorphous blob but should be partitioned first into realms - professional realm, domestic realm, recreational realm… and those power-holders would have different amounts of each realm.

Of course I have a piece of my wife, kids, etc including a bit of the boss and even a teensy bit of the prime minister. I don’t have as much of the boss as his bank manager does and my power over him will depend on the power I have over my co-workers when I urge them to go on strike.

“all parties to all relationships have some power” Do they? The prisoner has power over his torturer? The amount of power you can have must precisely depend on the number of people, the proportion of their lives you command and the ability of those people to do what you want. The measure of power cannot be in kilowatts. It must be in time, say minutes per day, per person multiplied by the number of persons. But the total amount is fixed and every individual's 100% is distributed. It can be traded, gifted, arrogated, or kept but whatever happens if someone gets more, someone else loses.

The theorists on this page try to classify power and argue over its intrinsic nature. Does anyone recognise power’s zero-sum nature and theorise its distribution?

- Pepper 150.203.227.130 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct citation for Galbraith?[edit]

The article cites An Anatomy of Power by Galbraith JK; the only citation I can find is for The anatomy of power / John Kenneth Galbraith; Publisher info Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1983. I wonder if the cite is wrong in the article, or if this is the one intended?

Third Wave[edit]

The 'Third Wave' link on this page. It's disamgbiguation page doesnt seem to have the page that it refers to, or am I wrong? Nic007 10:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious power[edit]

"Moral persuasion (possibly including religion)". POSSIBLY? Is this a joke? Religion is probably the most powerful mean to persuade anyone to do/believe anything (even killing themselves, cults are religion too). It was even proven that the atmosphere of churches and such has persuasive power; Old buildings and weird clothes = power. Please somebody, get rid of this "possibly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.158.196 (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is precisely that religion is so powerful that we be careful in the use of language. Ultimately we, I believe, should provide correct information but also make it more likely that the user may accept the information being provided. there is no reason to be overly harsh. We can use language that is both gentle to the religiously devout and clear about that religion does is this. Freedomofinformationforever (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Human Bias[edit]

This article is similar to Omnipotence in that there is blatant bias toward particular entities and/or structures (in this article's case, many mentions are made that identify only humans as able to hold 'power'). How is the definition of ability not considered to be directly equivalent to the definition of power in the context of this article?

If person A creates a trap that person B falls prey to, it is understood that person B was influenced by person A to fall into the trap. Person A did not influence any previous motions of person B--only the falling. Consider if person A trapped many people using whatever method. It is clear that, in the context of this article, person A holds power. Why, then, are humans the only entities so labled as having power when it's obvious that every creature that consumes life also has abilities to control their environment (otherwise they wouldn't survive)? A person that is deaf, blind, mute, and quadriplegic would not hold much (if any) power. All portions of the article identifying only humans/person/people as holding power should be changed to 'beings' or something similarly non-bias. 214.3.17.38 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Humans don't control nor abuse power, power controls and abuse humans.173.183.69.134 (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This displays a failure to address the problem of bias in the article & a failure to recognize that power (in the philisophical sense) is a concept. Concepts do not devise will--conscious entities do.137.242.1.63 (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Power is motivsation.[edit]

Power, in application to independent units, is manifested in two different ways in which one unit motivates another unit. One system is based on ‘fear’ and the other on ‘love’. In the material world power based on love manifests itself as motion along converging spiral. As fear it manifests itself as collisions, explosions or radiations. In application to human relations the two systems can be visualized as a pyramid on top of which is one most important person. That person motivates but is not motivated, apart from the pyramid as a whole. Those in lower layers motivate those below them and are motivated by those above them. Those in the bottom layer are only motivated but do not motivate anybody. Direction of motivation within the pyramid is from top to bottom. Each of the two systems of motivation has characteristics which are mutually contradictory. Fear separates, antagonizes and uses force. Love attracts and unites and it uses no force. Instead it motivates from within the unit. Superiors in the system based on fear take responsibility. They can be replaced by those below them because they are known through their orders. The subordinates compete with the superiors being motivated by resentment, by desire to remove fear and by the conviction that ‘I shall do it better’. In the system based on love the superior does not issue any orders and he takes no responsibility. In consequence he cannot be replaced because he remains unknown, beyond criticism and such as the subordinate imagines and wants him to be. The subordinate, motivated by attraction, wants to please the superior but he has to guess intentions of those above him. This amounts to carrying out orders without orders, creating in the subordinates the sense of freedom. KK (213.158.199.139 (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

only environment?[edit]

I disagree with the first sentence of the article, "Power is a measurement of an entity's ability to control its environment." Why is the measurement limited to its environment? How about the power over itself? I propose modification to "Power is a measurement of an entity's ability to control its environment and/or itself." Although it is rare to call someone with great self-controlling ability powerful, it certainly is common to call someone with little self-control powerless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.246.76 (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Foucault's quotation[edit]

Foucault's quotation (in the introductory paragraph) seems uncorrect to me, as he did not say that; it is rather said of him in the "Afterword" of Power/Knowledge (which is not sourced), which the current version does not seem to imply. I sourced, but a more accurate writing may be tried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.90.21 (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Cúchullain t/c 19:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)



Power (philosophy)Power (sociology)

This article approaches the topic more from a sociological perspective, as far as I can see, than from a philosophical one. For example, note the categories: Social concepts, Political concepts, and Majority–minority relations. Nyttend (talk) 15:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Tentative support immediate/instinctive response is that Nyttend's comments are correct, somewhat difficult to assess by Google Books, but categories, as Nyttend says, speak for themselves. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The concept seems to fit into political science more than any other discipline (anecdotally, I took a seminar titled only "Power" in the government department as an undergraduate). Inasmuch as this is a philosophical concept used in sociology, political science, and presumably other fields such as anthropology, the current title is preferable. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
And just looking at the names mentioned in the lede, while Giddens is a sociologist, Machiavelli was a (political) philosopher and Foucault was a philosopher first and foremost. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legitimate power[edit]

I propose that Legitimate power be merged into Power_(social_and_political)#Legitimate_power. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I need to admit my present confusion with the concepts of power, legitimacy,and authority. I understand what these mean but how should we cover them? Separately, together. Surely, they are intertwined ideas. All power is not authority. All power is not legitimate. All authority is legitimate. All authority is power. et cetera. My question is how best to deal with each concept? What I mean by this is: if they are separated then it may appear that are completely seperation and therefore losing the relationship they have. If we deal with them together will we do each justice in terms of the contribution each makes to the broader concept of power. In my view these are enormously important concepts on the subject of power. Freedomofinformationforever (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Split it[edit]

We need different terms for at least four concepts: the ability to coerce (i.e. using threat of violence), the strength of negotiating position (e.g. ability to refrain from exchange), the ability to persuade, and the ability to alter a physical environment (what a robot would have). If the word "power" really must remain in each term, I would call these something like political power, economic power, social power, and physical power. The first three involve an agent's ability to affect other agents. Economic and social power suggest great economic and social capital within a framework of rights; political power is the ability to change the framework of rights itself. I suspect that political scientists, economists, and sociologists will all approach this question from very different angles. I agree with the move proposal; the article is currently a mess. Simplulo (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

it is already better than it was now "power (social and political)" instead of "power (philosophy)". We already have economic power, not sure what "physical power" means (see power). Yes if possible this article should be split between social and politics.--Penbat (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi all. This article is always going to be a tricky one. I would have concerns about an attempted distinction between "social power" and "political power". The literature I am familiar with tends to focus on the way in which these two areas are bound up together (e.g. [1][2]). Of course, I am happy to be convinced. Alternatively, if synthesis of the countless theories is not possible then perhaps this overarching article would be better off deleted. A series of more specific articles (corresponding to particular theories) would then take its place. Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes i agree that the distinction isnt necessarily clear for example leadership power can be at any societal level, including the political level.--Penbat (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It is noteworthy that there is little difference between social power and political power. What is social power translates/approximates into political and vice-versa. I would like to see something explaining why that is the case, then finish off with how they differ.Freedomofinformationforever (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

  1. ^ Haslam, S. Alexander; Reicher, Stephen D.; Platow, Michael J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. New York, NY: Psychology Press. ISBN 978-1-84169-610-2. 
  2. ^ Turner, J. C. (2005). "Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory". European Journal of Social Psychology 35: 1–22. 

State power[edit]

Term "a body of state power" is widely used in the articles relating to the executive and other bodies of Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, etc., but I could not find it in the articles relating to US or Great Britain. I guess the readers may not understand, what this term mean. Or there may be other term. May we create an article, explaining what it mean, and link such article with the corresponding articles in other languages? I will be thankful for your opinions and help with such article,-- Zara-arush (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zara-arush. You are, of course, more than welcome to make a corresponding contribution to the article. That being said, it sounds like this may be content more suited to the wiktionary. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The term of course shall be added in wiktionary with a short description, but in the countries, where English is not a native language, the articles in different languages (e. g. English - Russian) are usually used to check the correspondence of terms and their usage. The terms of this group are very important to avoid misunderstanding in international contracts, for instance. That is why I offer to create such article in English and link it with the corresponding existing article in Russian, and need help with it, -- Zara-arush (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

experiment says having power reduces empathy[edit]

it may be worthwhile to include this research (npr.org) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.146.139.194 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"Power can be seen as evil or unjust"[edit]

This sentence appears very early in the article, third sentence of the intro, and I'm not sure it belongs there. Power is not an inherently negative concept, as this implies. It is only a way of organizing society and allowing it to function. Abuse of power is definitely evil/unjust, but power itself is not. 108.38.72.23 (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is your opinion. Just as well, there is an opinion that any form of coercion is inherently evil. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly not all power is "coercion". It does not say "coercion is evil", rather "power is evil". Certainly one would want to deal with the idea that power is seen in this way and under that title we would want to discover that it is the coercive aspects of power that provide for at least some of this perception. It would not be correct to conclude that power = evil. But examining how it can cause evil is a very important topic. I would very much like to see what is known about the abuse of power. Lord Acton has a seminal piece on this that should not be neglected on this topic.Freedomofinformationforever (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of Hohfeld[edit]

Hi all. Several months ago I removed a section on Hohfeld and his approach to legal power. That has since been re-added and I thus wanted to raise the issue here. At the time I removed the content with the following rationale:

Actually, now that my attention has been drawn to it, this section is highly niche and not particularly clear. I do not think it adds to the article. Thus removing.

I stand by this view and still think the section does not belong in this article. To flesh out my greatest concern, I think the section is niche in the sense that it is not really talking about social or political power at all. Rather, Hohfeld is providing a definition of "legal power", which he explicitly contrasts with power in a more common sense. For example:

In legal discourse, as in daily life, it may frequently be used in the sense of physical or mental capacity to do a thing; but, more usually and aptly, it is used to indicate a "legal power".[1]

Is my perspective on this shared by others? If so, would others agree that the content should be removed and reserved for an article dealing with legal power instead? I really do think that its inclusion here is just going to lead to confusion. Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all. Its been well over two weeks so I am going to go ahead with the removal. Cheers all. Andrew (talk) 09:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Andrew, in common usage power is a vague, overloaded word, and this confused article reflects it. It is pretty ironic that all kinds of understandings of power fit into the hodgepodge article (take a look at the lightweights currently given sections), but the model offered by a respected legal scholar and human-rights theoretician does not. If the Hohfeld article defines power, it is at least reasonable to consider that the power article could briefly reference Hohfeld. This might at least have offered a few readers a signpost out of the morass. Instead of trying to improve this article, perhaps we do need a separate one for Power (Legal). Unfortunately, political and legal are part of the same sphere, as opposed to the social and economic spheres. There is already a separate article for Economic power; there should be separate ones also for Social Power and Political Power. As it stands now, it is no surprise that this article is ignored by the Politics series and the article Separation of Powers. Simplulo (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi Simplulo. I am not sure "ironic" is the right assessment here. The article simply needs a lot of work (including the further removal of fringe definitions and redundancies). Also I am not sold on your article reciprocity argument. There are countless occasions where the use of a concept in one article will not necessitate the mention of that use in the concept's own article. Regardless, I do agree that it is reasonable to see coverage of Hohfelds definition outside of his own article. My recommendation would be to either:
  1. Create a separate article for Power (legal)
  2. Create a subsection for 'Legal power' in a more related article (e.g. Philosophy of law)
  3. Create a subsection in this article.
Are you happy with any of these options? I have ordered them vaguely in terms of my preference. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal power is a form/subset of political power. It is allded to under wikipedia search term "legitimacy" under "Forms of Legitimacy". Freedomofinformationforever (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference cleanup[edit]

Many references here are incomplete. Is "Falbo & Peplau, 1980." this reference? "Falbo, X, & Peplau, L. A (1980). Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 38. 618-628" [2] This was added as [3] by User:Coreyrudd --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Group project on Wikipedia[edit]

I am a student of Hanyang University in Korea. We are supposed to translate and improve this article into Korean for Korean Wikipedia. (We are going to put more information on this Korean article: ko: 권력)

we expect that (1) we could learn sociological information naturally by translating.

(2) we will check and fix incorrect or deficient references and citations. -- Kjeongeun (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hohfeld, Wesley. "Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Legal Reasoning," 23 Yale Law Journal 16 (1913).