P for Power – Pecunia et Bellum

Part 1 by Mr. Maverick 🚁

Power. A word with a mystical, magical, almost divine shade. When we hear the word power, we are instantly inspired with a sense of awe and fascination. Much ink has been spilled on the essence of this so common, yet so misconceived word. So, what is power, actually?

For a start, all definitions of power share one key, common feature – influence. Frankly, power is to some extent identical to influence. As a matter of fact, most dictionaries define the two terms interchangeably. Generally speaking, power is the capacity to guarantee the outcomes you want. More specifically, power is the ability to influence others demeanor so that you can achieve the results you want. Robert Dahl defines power as a matter of A getting B to do what A wants, or of A forcing B to not do what B wants to do.

If we think about it, every type of human relation contains the element of power. Either knowingly or not, in every relationship there is one person who has the upper hand; he or she tends or has the ability to push towards one direction or another to get his way, more often than the other person does. Interestingly enough, that is some form of power, just on a miniscule day-to-day level. Power, therefore, is somewhat “ethereal”, in the sense that it is dynamic and ubiquitous, permeating everything.

Does all this seem kind of, vague? Yes. And rightly so. Because when we talk about power we need to determine the context. First of all power can be exercised mostly via two routes: coercion and inducement.

Imagine, for a moment, that you are walking back home from work. You suddenly stop, look around and deliberately drop litter on the pavement because there’s no trash bin around and you’ve finished your sandwich quite some time now (just for the sake of the argument, I’m sure you wouldn’t do that). All of a sudden, a frightening 6’6’’ huge jacked dude crosses the road fast, stops right in front of you and angrily says “pick it up or I’ll slap you”. You’re already thinking of picking it up, aren’t you? That is coercion. Now, imagine doing the exact same thing, only this time, a charming young lady or man comes your way, smiles and gently says, “don’t you agree that that is something inappropriate to do?”. You’ll surely pick it up. That is inducement. In spite of using diametrically opposed approaches, both individuals pushed you towards their desired direction, achieving their goal.

In the sphere of international affairs, when we hear about power we usually visualize fighter jets, tanks and aircraft carriers. It’s only plausible, since we always tend to visualize tangible and static things, things that can be quantified. For example, in the middle of the 20^th century, Joseph Stalin caustically asked “how many divisions does the Pope have?” Nonetheless, five decades later, in the context of ideas, the Papacy was still intact while Stalin’s empire had collapsed.

Power is conveyed through resources, either tangible or intangible. In the first case above, the guys’ frightening physique is a tangible resource that allowed him to impose his will. In the latter, the composure and gentleness of the individual are intangible resources. Oftentimes, when we define power solely based on the available resources, we encounter a paradox; those best endowed with power do not always get the outcomes they want.

This is not to deny the importance of power resources. It’s just that, having power resources as such does not guarantee that you will get the outcome you want. We cannot say that someone is extremely powerful without specifying ‘powerful to do what?’. In other words, one has to define who is involved, where, when and on what, that is the domain of power. For instance, in basketball, the zone defense scheme is at times extremely powerful and effective, by clogging the opponent’s passing lanes and disrupting his offensive flow. Yet, a team with a flawless zone defense doesn’t stand a chance against sharpshooters like Stephen Curry and Damian Lillard. To put it differently, a strong poker hand does not win if the game is bridge. That is why, in spite of being a far superior power, the United States lost the war in Vietnam. As a result, adaptability is central when it comes to implementing power.

As humans, we are recurrently victims of a cognitive bias, which is called “The law of the instrument” or “Maslow’s hammer”, after the name of the American psychologist Abraham Maslow. This bias involves an over-reliance on a familiar tool, or resource of power in our case. Maslow said that “If the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail.” In the same spirit, former President Barrack Obama famously pointed out that “just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.” And rightfully so.

By using effectively specific power resources to achieve our goal under certain conditions, does not mean that we can keep doing so in every other situation. In the ongoing rivalry between China and the US, China is using its economic might to establish ties and expand its influence in various countries as an investor and credit provider. China might, arguably, surpass the US in the coming years, in terms of economic power. However, among many other things, becoming the world’s no. 1 requires also a compelling narrative, which no matter how many trillions or aircraft carriers China builds, it still lacks.

Circumstances are ever-changing, creating unique, dynamic contexts. Power, no matter its size, requires prudence, because precision beats power. Use the weapons in your quiver wisely, or, as Theodore Roosevelt said, “speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” Don’t be too soft, neither too hard. Be smart.

References:

Maslow, A. H. (1966). The Psychology of Science. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Cooper, A. F., Heine, J., & Thakur, R. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs.

Fletcher, T. (2016). The Naked Diplomat: Understanding Power and Politics in the Digital Age. London, UK: William Collins.

Dahl, R. A. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215.

Greene, R. (2000). The 48 Laws of Power. New York, NY: Penguin Books.