Power


 * Definition**

The word “power” has Anglo-Norman roots, surfacing in the 9th century in the forms of “podir” and “pouvoir” (French), meaning “the ability to do something.” The definition evolved over several centuries; for example, “power” became a synonym for authority or physical strength (12th century), and by the 13th century, the term was used to refer to an armed force or jurisdiction (Oxford English Dictionary, 2010). Power is currently defined as “1) ability to act or affect something strongly; physical or mental strength; might; vigour; energy; effectiveness.” The second definition listed under power describes “control or authority over others; dominion, rule; government, command, sway” and “the capacity to direct or influence the behavior of others; personal or social influence.” In addition to the definitions, the entry for “power” includes many references to other common uses of the word, such as “power structure,” or in common phrases such as “the power of life and death” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2010).

Power is also relational. "It exists or is manifest in particular relationships between individuals, between groups, or between an individual and a group [and] is explicit and observable or implicit" (Jaskinski, 2001, p. 443).


 * Power and Communication**

The study of power as an oppressing force became prominent in the 20th century through Marx, and later critical scholars such as Foucault and Habermas. (See also hegemony.) Power is a factor in many areas studied by communication scholars, particularly health, media, and organizations, but moreover, the concept of communication itself, aside from an academic discipline, figures prominently into the discussion of power. Communication, along with information, is a source of power (Castells, 2007, p. 238), because “communication, and particularly socialized communication, the one that exists in the public realm, provides the support for the social production of meaning , the battle of the human mind is largely played out in the processes of communication” (Castells, 2007, p. 239). Communication, or communicative practices, enables people to build, maintain, or resist power.

Power is often studied through more public space, such as through media or in organizations. “Institutional space” is subject to more scrutiny and the open exercise of power, as compared to interpersonal interaction within families or among friends in which the exercise of power is covert (Wang, 2006, p. 532). In this brief explication of power, we will explore the relationship between communication and power, with a specific emphasis on the study of power within the media and organizations.


 * Power and the media**

Castells (2007) argues that, while the media itself does not control power, it is in this forum where power is decided (p. 242). Mass communication scholars have discussed the link between the accessibility of information and community power structures; differences in power structures produced different media roles in the respective communities. In communities in which power is centralized, media was table and maintained order; however, in communities in which power is decentralized, media covered conflict and controversy (Armstrong, 2008, p. 807).

Mass media tends to reinforce the establishment rather than provoke or encourage new ideas (Turow, 1985; p. 212). The creation of new media was touted as a way of giving voice to those who were previously voiceless, yet this enthusiasm soon gave way to concerns that new media technologies only enabled further dialogue among those who already had power, or prompted those in power to attempt to maintain control over their information (Armstrong, 2008, p. 810-811). Castells (2007) argues that new social practices of communication are chipping away at the “structural bias” of new media that has favored those already in power (p. 258). (For a further discussion of communication power in a networked society, see Castells, 2009).


 * Power and Organizations**

Power is a frequent topic in organizational communication studies. In this context, because power typically refers to as an organization exerting influence over individuals or other organizations, may be confused with or used synonymously with “control;” however, power is often a more subtle force (for more on power and control, see Tompkins & Cheney, 1985, p. 180-5). In particular, critical scholars have studied the relationships between power, communication, and organization with the idea that “meaning, identity and power relationships are produced, maintained, and reproduced through ongoing communicative practices” (Mumby, 2001, p. 601). It is necessary to incorporate the study of communication, information exchange between workers, and the social components of organizations to avoid getting a “sterile” understanding of power (Kuhn, 2008, p. 1230). Power may also be studied in an interorganizational manner, in which organizations can control or unduly influence others (Turow, 1985, p. 219).

As is the case with power in media studies, power in organizational life is a sort of collision between information and communication, as well as a struggle to wield control over it. Mumby (2001) describes power as battle to control meaning, where in the group that can attach their own interests to meaning is able to sustain and replicate power relations (p. 601). For power to be effective, communication is necessary. Those in power must communicate their wants and needs, however those under power may try to anticipate (Tompkins & Cheney, 1985, p. 195-6).


 * Connotations of Power**

Power is often cast in a negative light, as many of the studies center around disparate power relations or oppressive power structures. Some posit that our own communication is so laden with power differences, that is impossible to consider verbal interaction without the presence of power (see Wang, 2006, p. 35). However, those who are interested in further exploring the concept of power may be inclined to study responses to power. These responses may include resistance (see Fleming & Spicer, 2003, 2007, and 2008; Mumby, 2005). Others explore or challenge the current distributions of power through communicative practices. For those who wish to bring a change, communication is more than merely a source of action, it is action (DeTurk, 2006, p. 35). Stanley Deetz’s landmark text, Democracy in an Age of Corporate Colonization (1992), puts communication at the center of these debates: “The moral foundation for democracy is in the daily practices of communication, the presumptions that each of us make as we talk with each other. As a moral political practice is grounded in the everyday, so too is the violation. Democracy is denied by neither armies nor powerful figures, but in the moment-to moment” (p. 350-351).

include component="comments" page="page:Power" limit="10"


 * References**

Armstrong, C.L. (2008). Exploring a two-dimensional model of community pluralism and its effects on the level of transparency in community decision making. //Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85//, (4), 807-822.

Castells, M. (2009). //Communication power//. New York: Oxford University Press.

Castells, M. (2007). Communication, Power and Counter-power in the Network Society. //International Journal of Communication, 1//, 238-266

Deetz, S. A. (1992). //Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life.// Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

DeTurk, S. (2006). The power of dialogue: Consequences of intergroup dialogue and their implications for agency and alliance building. //Communication Quarterly, 54//(1), 33-51.

Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2008). Beyond power and resistance: New approaches to organizational politics. //Management Communication Quarterly, 21//(3), 301-309.

Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2007). //Contesting the corporation//. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2003). Working at a cynical distance: Implications for subjectivity, power and resistance. //Organization, 10//, 157-179.

Jasinski, J. (2001). Sourcebook on rhetoric: Key concepts i contemporary rhetorical studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Kuhn, T. (2008). A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. //Organization Studies, 29//, 1227-1254.

Mumby, D. K. (2005). Theorizing resistance in organization studies: A dialectical approach. //Management Communication Quarterly, 19//, 19-44.

Mumby, D. K. (2001). Power and politics. In F.M. Jablin & L.L. Putnam (Eds.), //The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods//, 585-623. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Power. (2010). //Oxford English Dictionary//. Retrieved July 8, 2010 from []

Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in contemporary organizations. In R.D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), //Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions//, 179-210. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Turow, J. (1985). Learning to portray institutional power: The socialization of creators in mass media organizations. In R.D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds.), //Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions//, 211-234. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Wang, J. (2006). Questions and the exercise of power. //Discourse and Society, 17//(4), 529–548