{"title":"权力的微观-宏观构成","authors":"C. Castelfranchi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1829901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The focus of this work is the complex and dialectic relationship between personal, social, and institutional powers. This distinction is not new, it is even obvious or commonsensical. However, first, this multi-layered nature of power is not acknowledged in all the disciplines (for instance sociology typically rejects the idea of a connection between the personal powers and the social ones); second, in our view there is not a good analytic theory of the personal and interpersonal layers of power and of their – not so obvious – relationships with the power that we prefer to call “institutional” (where the “legal” one is just a sub-case based not simply on conventions, traditions, and social norms but on a system of laws). For example, the term “physical power” is a bit reductive, since in fact one not only needs strength, skills, and a working body, but the appropriate action plan and the relevant information, i.e. knowledge, and also the required mental abilities and conditions (motives, awareness, confidence, and so on).","PeriodicalId":149082,"journal":{"name":"Continental Philosophy eJournal","volume":"66 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"125","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Micro-Macro Constitution of Power\",\"authors\":\"C. Castelfranchi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1829901\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The focus of this work is the complex and dialectic relationship between personal, social, and institutional powers. This distinction is not new, it is even obvious or commonsensical. However, first, this multi-layered nature of power is not acknowledged in all the disciplines (for instance sociology typically rejects the idea of a connection between the personal powers and the social ones); second, in our view there is not a good analytic theory of the personal and interpersonal layers of power and of their – not so obvious – relationships with the power that we prefer to call “institutional” (where the “legal” one is just a sub-case based not simply on conventions, traditions, and social norms but on a system of laws). For example, the term “physical power” is a bit reductive, since in fact one not only needs strength, skills, and a working body, but the appropriate action plan and the relevant information, i.e. knowledge, and also the required mental abilities and conditions (motives, awareness, confidence, and so on).\",\"PeriodicalId\":149082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Continental Philosophy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"66 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"125\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Continental Philosophy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1829901\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Continental Philosophy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1829901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The focus of this work is the complex and dialectic relationship between personal, social, and institutional powers. This distinction is not new, it is even obvious or commonsensical. However, first, this multi-layered nature of power is not acknowledged in all the disciplines (for instance sociology typically rejects the idea of a connection between the personal powers and the social ones); second, in our view there is not a good analytic theory of the personal and interpersonal layers of power and of their – not so obvious – relationships with the power that we prefer to call “institutional” (where the “legal” one is just a sub-case based not simply on conventions, traditions, and social norms but on a system of laws). For example, the term “physical power” is a bit reductive, since in fact one not only needs strength, skills, and a working body, but the appropriate action plan and the relevant information, i.e. knowledge, and also the required mental abilities and conditions (motives, awareness, confidence, and so on).