On power and empowerment.

F. Pratto
{"title":"On power and empowerment.","authors":"F. Pratto","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study presents a conceptual analysis of social power. The most common theories of power are social-relational, an approach instantiated in a range of contemporary experiments that give participants the chance to control other people's outcomes. The relational approach is also reflected in various analyses of international relations. In comparing and contrasting relational theories of power, I identify logical inconsistencies and shortcomings in their ability to address empowerment and reductions in inequality. In turn, I propose a new ecological conceptualization of empowerment as the state of being able to achieve one's goals and of power as stemming from a combination of the capacity of the party and the affordances of the environment. I explain how this new conceptualization can describe the main kinds of power social relations, avoid logical contradictions, and moreover, distinguish power from agency and from control. This new conceptualization of power as the possibility of meeting goals, coupled with recognizing survival as the fundamental goal of all living things, implies an absolute and not relative or relational standard for power, namely well-being. It also allows us to conceive of power in ways that help address the many social concerns that have motivated research on power.","PeriodicalId":76614,"journal":{"name":"The British journal of social and clinical psychology","volume":"57 1","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"136","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British journal of social and clinical psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 136

Abstract

This study presents a conceptual analysis of social power. The most common theories of power are social-relational, an approach instantiated in a range of contemporary experiments that give participants the chance to control other people's outcomes. The relational approach is also reflected in various analyses of international relations. In comparing and contrasting relational theories of power, I identify logical inconsistencies and shortcomings in their ability to address empowerment and reductions in inequality. In turn, I propose a new ecological conceptualization of empowerment as the state of being able to achieve one's goals and of power as stemming from a combination of the capacity of the party and the affordances of the environment. I explain how this new conceptualization can describe the main kinds of power social relations, avoid logical contradictions, and moreover, distinguish power from agency and from control. This new conceptualization of power as the possibility of meeting goals, coupled with recognizing survival as the fundamental goal of all living things, implies an absolute and not relative or relational standard for power, namely well-being. It also allows us to conceive of power in ways that help address the many social concerns that have motivated research on power.
关于权力和授权。
本研究对社会权力进行概念分析。最常见的权力理论是社会关系理论,这种方法在一系列当代实验中得到了体现,这些实验让参与者有机会控制他人的结果。关系方法也反映在对国际关系的各种分析中。在比较和对比权力关系理论的过程中,我发现了它们在解决赋权和减少不平等问题上的逻辑矛盾和缺陷。反过来,我提出了一个新的生态赋权概念,即能够实现个人目标的状态,以及源于党的能力和环境的支持的权力的结合。我解释了这种新的概念如何描述权力社会关系的主要种类,避免逻辑矛盾,并区分权力与代理和控制。这种将权力作为实现目标的可能性的新概念,加上承认生存是所有生物的基本目标,意味着权力的绝对标准,而不是相对的或关系的标准,即福祉。它还允许我们以有助于解决推动权力研究的许多社会问题的方式来理解权力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信