Importance of Power Relations - Research Paper Example

Introduction The common – sense notion of power considers it as a static commodity that some people have while others do not. But when viewing the notions of Power and Power Relations as forces that govern the production of knowledge; it becomes evident that power is not static (Hollway, Lucey, Phoenix & Lewis, 2007). Rather, it has a two – way dynamic and flows from one element to the other based on cultural, situational and other factors. Common sense notions of power and power relations also speak of power with respect to whether it is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – i.e. – whether it is used for positive or negative ends. Although this is an important element of study, the understanding of power relations in Psychology primarily suggests that these relationships are Positive (Hollway et al., 2007). This simply means that they do affect events and outcomes. The outcomes in question could be beneficial to one or more parties involved, could be harmful, or could be in part beneficial and in part harmful. In any of the preceding cases, it becomes important to understand the power relations between elements as part of developing a global understanding of the situation (Hollway et al., 2007). Importance of Power Relations in Everyday Life As the field of Social Psychology has evolved, it has become all the more important to understand the role of power and power relations in social phenomena. Power is inherent in all social relations, whether it is at a micro or a macro level (Phoenix, Hollway & Elliott, 2009). Thus, it is necessary to understand the impact of the existing power relations in different situations, so that the data collected and observations made may be interpreted more accurately. Power relations are dynamic, and affect all parties concerned in some way or the other (Hollway et al., 2007). Thus, power should not be viewed only in terms of how the more powerful affect the situation, but also how the less powerful respond to their lack of power. As a situation develops, power may flow from one participant to another, and it is necessary to understand this dynamic when interpreting the changes in people’s responses to the situation. Thus, it becomes apparent that power is not only relational but also contextual (Hollway et al., 2007). Different people may take power given the situational circumstances. Such a critical analysis of the data is necessary in not only for a more holistic interpretation of facts; but also for the development of stronger theory of human functioning (Hollway et al., 2007). Over the years it has become evident that power affects all interactions and relationships across the board. Even a simple interaction with a stranger when where one individual asks another for directions is associated with an exchange of power, no matter how imperceptible. When one person asks another for something, they give them the power to satisfy / help them or to disappoint them. If the respondent answers in a positive manner (either by giving the directions or by apologising for not knowing) they pass power back to the asker. On the other hand, if the respondent rebuffs to asker, he/she may attempt to re-establish balance of power by attributing negative dispositional traits to the respondent. Most people are oblivious to such minor exchanges of power; particularly as these power relations rarely impact their lives on a significant level (Langdridge, Taylor & Mahendran, 2007). But sometimes even power relations that significantly impact someone’s life may be overlooked. In real world settings, examples of such over looked instances can be seen in racial discrimination against coloured people and discrimination against women (Hollway et al., 2007). When attitudes that suggest that a particular group is more valuable or influential are widely held, the resulting power relations between the preferred and the non-preferred groups can be constantly imbalanced without anyone noticing (Baumeister & Bushman, 2011). Even in present day circumstances, one can see the effects of these power relations in the way many people play out their everyday lives. For example, in the study described by Phoenix, Hollway and Elliott (2009) the mothers of young children reported that they often had to remind their male spouses of their tasks with respect to childcare. Any involvement on part of the father was represented as “helping” rather than an expected response of a parent towards the wellbeing of his child. This perspective on paternal involvement in childcare can be interpreted in the context of the power relations not just between the father and the mother in particular, but can also be attributed to the power relations among men and women in general (Phoenix, Hollway & Elliott, 2009). Men tend to have more power than women in ‘independence building tasks’ like earning money and taking decisions that impact the entire family. On the other hand, women typically seem to have more power in the home, and are considered the ‘experts’ in matters of nourishment and childcare (Langdridge, Taylor & Mahendran, 2007). When society as a whole judges one kind of expertise as more important than the other; power relations between the genders become unbalanced. This imbalance is in favour of the group that is believed to have expertise in the favoured tasks (Langdridge, Taylor & Mahendran, 2007). It can seem that power is a bad thing. But in truth, power is merely a means of demonstrating who is more likely to control any given situation. It is the use of power that may be good or bad; so that there are as many instances of power being used for good purposes as there are instances of power being used for bad purposes (Hollway et al., 2007). Power Relations and Psychological Research Present day Social Psychology has developed it’s understanding of the effect of power based on data from traditional experimental methods as well as from the discourse on feminist and racial issues, among others. In the early experimental tradition, there was considerable emphasis on objectivity; and thus, subjective experiences of participants were often not considered – whether with respect to the development of the experiment, or with respect to the interpretation of the data (Hollway et al., 2007). Due to this perspective, most researchers were oblivious to the role of power relations in the way the experiments were conducted. One of the most famous experiments in Social Psychology is Milgram’s study on obedience to instructions (Milgram, 1965). As part of this experiment, participants were required to ‘teach’ another individual a series of word pairs, and provide an electric shock to the learner each time they made a mistake (Baumeister & Bushman, 2011). The participant was expected to increase the intensity of the shock with each mistake. When the participant tried to stop or protested, the experimenter urged them to continue (Burger, Girgis & Manning, 2011). The results of the experiment suggested that people are very likely to obey authority figures (in this case the experimenter) and tend to ascribe responsibility to these authority figures when obeying them against their one better judgement (Milgram, 1965). Although the influence of power was never directly discussed; this experiment is an ideal example that demonstrates different aspects of power relations between the experiment and the participant. The most obvious of the power relations is that shared by the experimenter and the participant. It is evident that the participant ascribed greater power to the experimenter (Hollway et al., 2007); both because he was in charge, and because he was the ‘expert’ in the situation (DeLamater & Myers, 2011). Milgram's experiments suggested that physical proximity with the experiment was associated with greater obedience. It seems intuitive that the participant would feel less in control when the ‘expert’ was present; as compared to when he was not (Burger, Girgis & Manning, 2011). Conditions where the experimenter was not present to exert power, the participant was able to take back some of the power that he/she had ascribed to the experimenter. Thus, the most fascinating aspect of the data on obedience from the perspective of power relations may be taken from participants who disobeyed – i.e. – participants who took back power from the experimenter and made their own choices. A second kind of power relation exists between the physical location and the participant. Milgram found in later research that moving the experiment to a non-academic setting decreased the amount of obedience (Hollway et al., 2007). This is similar to conditions where patients meekly wait for a doctor when visiting his/her clinic, or when students are deferential to teachers within school premises. On meeting the same doctor or teacher in a social setting, the person may not be as eager to please. This suggests that locations can affect the power dynamic among people so that one individual has more power in one situation, but another has more power in another (Burger, Girgis & Manning, 2011). An unnerving study by Philip Zimbardo – The Stanford Prison experiment – incaplules how inequality in power relations can have detrimental effects for those individuals who have less power (Zimbardo, Haney, Banks & Jaffee, 1975). As part of this experiment, some students acted as prisoners who were stripped of all power, and other students acted as guards who had tremendous power over the prisoners. In a matter of just six days, the guards harassed the prisoners and humiliated them in many different ways, so that the experiment had to be stopped (DeLamater & Myers, 2011). It was also observed that the prisoners were not passive; but they tried to take back some power from the guards where possible (Baumeister & Bushman, 2011). Understanding the Prison Experiment from the perspective of Power relations can help understand the actions of the different participants of this experiment in a far more holistic manner. Studies like these demonstrate the importance of designing Social Psychological experiments in such a manner that the experimenter is not ascribed more power than necessary, and that the participant is able to assert their own power over the situation. One way in which this may be done is to remind the participant that they are able to stop the experiment and leave whenever they wish to. Another way is to educate them (informed consent) about the experiment so that they are able to use knowledge in making decisions. Power Relations in Unique Situations One phenomenon in which it is fascinating to explore the role of power relations is the behaviour that Zimbardo has described as ‘Deindividuation’; where individuals lose their sense of inhibition and act in uncharacteristic ways as part of a larger group (Baumeister & Bushman, 2011). Each individual shares similar power relations with the other members of such groups or crowds. But as a unit, the group also has power within larger social interactions. When individuals surrender their personal power to the group, they allow the group to sweep them along (DeLamater & Myers, 2011). As a consequence, the group also gains power and directs the actions of individuals. At any point, if any individual chooses to take back personal agency, the power they had initially surrendered to the group now reverts back to them. Thus, they are able to disengage from the group if they choose to. Another important condition, in which power must be considered, is the patient – doctor relationship in mental health. Rosenhan (1979) has demonstrated the kind of power that is associated with specific locations / situations. In this study, normal and healthy persons approached mental health wards and complained of psychotic symptoms. These people were then admitted by the medical staff, after which the participant stopped presenting with any symptoms whatsoever (DeLamater & Myers, 2011). Practically all participants were diagnosed with psychological disorders, and were not released or reassessed for a considerable amount of time. According to the reports of these participants, the patients in such wards as they observed had practically no power, which the medical professionals had power over the patients (Rosenhan, 1979). This power was then used to justify the medication of, and the lack of interest of the patients. It was not possible for patients to refute their diagnoses; but it was possible for the doctors and nurses to affect the outcomes for the patients. Given such power relations, the ethical conduct of medical and mental health practionners becomes all the more important. References Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Social Psychology & Human Nature (2nd ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning. Burger, J., Girgis, Z. & Manning, C. (2011). In their own words: Explaining obedience to authority through an examination of participants' comments. Social Psychological and Personality: Science, 2, 460–466. DeLamater, J. D. & Myers, D. J. (2011). Social Psychology (7th ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning. Hollway, W., Lucey, H., Phoenix, A. & Lewis, G. (2007). Social Psychology Matters. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Langdridge, D., Taylor, S. & Mahendran, K. (2007). Critical Readings in Social Psychology. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority, Human Relations, 18, 57–76. Phoenix, A., Hollway, W. & Elliott, H. (2007). An Introduction to Social Psychology: Power Relations. The Open University. Podcast published at http://www.open.edu Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179, 250 – 258. Zimbardo, P., Haney, C., Banks, W.C. & Jaffee, D. (1975). The psychology of imprisonment: privation, power and pathology. In Rosenhan, D. and London, P. (eds) Theory and Research in Abnormal Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 271–87. Reflexive Comment At the beginning of this course, I had only a cursory understanding of social phenomena. Over the course, I have not only learnt about the theory and application of Social Psychology, but also the different perspectives that may be used to understand any particular phenomenon. The nature of the knowledge that makes up Social Psychology is constantly evolving as a result of both – changes in society and changes in the researchers understanding and sensitivity to particular circumstances. Present day research in Social psychology tries to incorporate data from both formal experiments, as well as an analysis of the subjective experience of individuals. In my present opinion, Social Psychology is the study of the individual as a part of the different social contexts available. In the process of analysing the reasons for an individual or groups behaviour, it is important to consider not just the objective facts, but also the context for the said behaviours that are provides by situational and relational conditions. Over this course, I have been exposed to a number of theories that explain common and rare social phenomenon. But more importantly, I find myself now equipped to evaluate particular experiences in a systematic and exhaustive manner that allows me to not only the responses of individuals, but also the relationship between these responses. Read More