K too sweeping – obviously – power is reversible

Understanding power as constructed through patterns of social relations that are reproduced through processes of socialisation provides an agenda for contesting power that concerns changing the way people relate to each other – including changing the meanings they give to these relationships. Robert Chambers uses the language of ‘uppers’ and ‘lowers’ to describe situations in which one person has power another, while stressing that a person may be an ‘upper’ in one context and a ‘lower’ in another. Gaventa in his article on entry points for change starts from the position of looking at the institutional and cultural structures that enable domination. Using the idea of ‘three faces of power’ – visible, hidden and invisible – he suggests that political processes are shaped not just by contests over (visible) interests that take place in observable or public spaces but also by the structures of relations that set the rules of the game (or hidden structures) so that some have more power than others to influence outcomes, as well as by invisible power already discussed. Gaventa then takes Chambers’ idea of context and turns this into concepts of ‘space’ and ‘place’. By ‘space’ he means the ways in which participation or political engagement occurs, for example whether power is contested in formal parliamentary institutions or through autonomous social movements; by ‘place’ he means the arenas of political struggles, from the very local level of the family or community up to national and even global levels. When power is seen as a finite resource, inevitably the history of humanity will be one of contest. If we see contestation as ‘natural’ or inevitable then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But what if power were understood more like a balloon that can be infinitely expanded? Could we explore power for change by looking for entry points towards achieving harmonious and equitable social relations? Although Gaventa sees power primarily in terms of conflict or contestation, both he and Chambers are interested in the idea of how spaces for participation can expand power so that more people have it, with Chambers being more interested in how this can be achieved without anyone losing out, as we now go on to discuss. 6 Expanding power Not seeing power as a zero-sum game has long been a preoccupation of Chambers who argues that positive change can be more easily achieved through identifying win-win situations (Saxena et al. 1989). In his article in this IDS Bulletin, he comments that by assuming that power is never given up without a fight, those struggling for social justice may be missing important opportunities for engaging with the powerful. An example would be working with decision-makers on the assumption that they are trying their best but are constrained by the inadequacies of their own bureaucratic organisations. Resistance can be reduced by inviting more people to help them seize such opportunities. Understanding power in this way is underpinned by a normative preference for cooperation rather than competition. As such, it has a very long philosophical history. This includes a strand in feminist understandings of the political that emphasises that the value of the common good as achieved through democratic sharing and participation, in contrast to a liberal concept of democracy, as being an arena where competing interests come to some kind of bargain or settlement about the balance of power in society (Mouffe 1997). Conversely, Hunter’s study of the passing of the Prevention of Family Violence Act in South Africa in 1993 reveals the complexity of any particular attempt to change societal power relations, with both the expansion of power through new coalitions of women across political divides and political opportunism by an authoritarian party desperately seeking new voters. Taylor and Boser pursue a similar line of thought when seeking to avoid thinking of power relations in terms of them and us, which can be particularly challenging when those resisting change are acting in an adversarial fashion. Yet, they argue, if one is capable of learning not to internalise the conflict and not to counter aggressive power with a further aggressive reaction, there are real possibilities of achieving greater participation and more equal power relations within organisations such as institutions of higher education. Approaches to learning that aim to transform society would thus be reinforced by the day-to-day practice of the staff, enhancing the possibility that their students in turn might be agents of change in their future careers as development actors. Gaventa’s idea of expanding power, on the other hand, makes no assumptions that someone else does not have to give it up. Rather he suggests strategies for expanding power among those who are currently powerless, for example through building horizontal alliances that link up different spatial entry points for change. However, he stresses that without prior awareness, building such new strategies for expanding power may be captured by prevailing interests. his idea of raising awareness, encouraging critical reflection or discursive consciousness, runs through all the contributions to this IDS Bulletin, to which we finally turn. 7 Transforming power Many people in a subordinate position may question the way the world is ordered but do not organise themselves for strategic resistance because of the fear of the consequences should they fail. They would need to gain support from others to develop new ways of understanding – or frameworks of meaning – about how the world could work. What are the conditions that allow for the mobilisation of such support? Power with is a term that has been coined to refer to the building of common ground among different interests, the development of shared values and strategies and the creation of collective strength through organisation (Rowlands 1997). Power with depends on individuals and groups releasing their power within through a process of self interrogation or consciousness raising. Empowerment frameworks have been developed by activists that draw on these concepts of power and can serve as guides to action, including the likely risks in applying these (Veneklasen and Miller 2002). One such risk is pointed to by Shutt who comments that whether one’s actions from a position of power to support empowerment are interpreted as helpful and creating power to or trying to gain control (power over), is highly subjective and is shaped by the beliefs and values of those one is seeking to help. Chambers, an avowed optimist, argues that through a ‘pedagogy of the powerful’ power over can be used as an empowering opportunity for both themselves and those they are seeking help; ‘with less power goes a better experience of life’. Harris uses a Socratic approach of asking questions, setting off a train of self enquiry leading to changed behaviour. However, she does not necessarily agree with Chambers that men, when ‘uppers’ in a relationship with women, are likely to voluntarily give up power. In both cases however, it is an approach to learning that encourages self scrutiny. Both Pettit’s and Taylor and Boser’s articles focus on the importance of teachers and facilitators themselves reflecting on their power in promoting wider learning for change. Pettit emphasises the benefits of cyclical and experiential methods that can help educators and those they are learning with to understand power not just conceptually and cognitively but through the senses, emotions, creativity, intuition and embodied forms of knowledge as means of accessing and transforming power. On the other hand, Taylor and Boser recognise how emotional stress in situations of adversarial power relations can block attempts to be reflexive. They ask: How do we nurture ourselves and others during such times? What strategies enable us to maintain openness to learning during periods of conflict and stress? And what are the implications for the role of, and necessary skills for, leadership in participatory processes? In an article that includes reflecting on their personal experience of confronting power in their own organisations, the authors conclude that the development of trust and working cooperatively rather than in an adversarial manner, is key to altering power relations. 8 Conclusion: knowing power In the introduction to her article and reflecting on her growing up in Jamaica, Moncrieffe considers the dual role of power to which we referred at the start of this introduction, and in that respect considers Bourdieu’s theme of misrecognition: Power, in practice, can be repressive and even lend itself to violence; conversely, power is crucial for producing healthy changes in social relations, such as would profit those subsisting in conditions of poverty or those subjected to various forms of injustice; repressive power is most potent and durable when people accept and uphold the (mis)perceptions and conditions that underpin their own inequality; therefore, much hinges on the extent to which, in the emerging social contexts, people are adequately challenged to recognise, confront and transform the socially acquired dispositions that allow for repression, both of others and of themselves. How can a team of researchers and teachers – knowledge specialists – contribute to this challenge, bearing in mind Pettit’s discussion of how our own lives are full of contradictions and that we are ourselves often failing to confront our ‘socially acquired dispositions’ that reproduce injustice? One way to confront these dispositions is to address issues of power in our everyday professional practice within our own organisations, as discussed by Taylor and Boser. A further way is for team members to work with those whom Chambers has called ‘lowers’ to support them to reconceptualise their own power positions and work with them to help improve their capacity to develop power within and power with. Yet another could be to take up Chambers’ challenge of working with ‘uppers’ to support them in ceding power or, to express it more felicitously, sharing it. Harris’ work with men in Mali and elsewhere is a case in point. Not all members of the team would necessarily support all of these options. But all understand knowledge as a resource in the power field and, as Gaventa and Cornwall stress in their article, seek to make the production of knowledge more democratic.2 Therefore, a diversity in understanding and approaches within our own team is an expression of the importance we place on there being no single way of understanding the world or of promoting social justice. This reflects a commitment to help others find their own understandings rather than having power (understood in the Foucauldian sense as discipline) interpret the world for them in a way that is disempowering. Thus, the contributions to this IDS Bulletin and the ways in which power is interrogated are very varied, despite a shared commitment to exploring its meaning for social change. In categorising power in the way we have, our intention has not been to offer a comprehensive or exclusive framework for analysing power. Rather, in our presentation of the argument, we have sought to construct a positive spiral between reflection and transformation, concluding that the role of the action researcher/teacher is to explore with others – students, activists, practitioners, policymakers and communicators – as to how power can be harnessed for change and to work alongside them in tracing and learning from the myriad of micro level efforts, successes and failures. Other than in Hunter’s discussion of the state and the scope for legal activism in renegotiating the concepts of public and private domains, missing from this collection of articles is any central analysis of power in terms of the connections between the diffuse operations of power in society and the formal political institutions that reflect, reproduce and potentially contribute to changing power. It is worth noting that the Participation, Power and Social Change team also hosts the Development Research Centre on Citizenship, Participation and Accountability and in its new cycle of work, one of the Centre’s three research themes relates to how new democratic institutions and new patterns of activism open political opportunities for people to express their interests and negotiate in political arenas. A second theme concerns how violence shapes relations between states and their citizens (not just as individuals but also as community and family members). Nevertheless, over and above this work in the Citizenship research programme, the editors believe there remains a challenge for the team as a whole in expanding our own knowledge of power so as not to be constrained by conventional theoretical and disciplinary distinctions. In particular, we might want to go further along the road that Hunter has indicated, exploring how power shapes citizens’ constructions of state institutions and the potential role of these institutions, including development organisations, in harnessing public power as a counterbalance to patriarchal and other forms of oppressive societal power within families and local communities. Thus, we ask our readers both to engage with this work in progress and to encourage us to go further.