My Views on Power: Empowerment and Objectification
Power
Power is the capacity to mobilize resources to meet needs.
Sources of Power
Sources of power are vast. If power is simply the capacity to mobilize resources, then we can speak about structural power, social power, personal power, and many other forms.
Structural power is power granted through systems. Think of a police officer, a boss, a judge, a parent, a teacher, or any other socially constructed role that gives a person special capacity to organize resources, make decisions, or shape outcomes.
Social power is power that comes through relationships. Think of friends, followers, reputation, trust, influence, loyalty, or any form of power that comes from how people relate to you rather than from an official role.
The distinction between structural and social power is the difference between power that comes from a position and power that comes from connection.
Finally, there is personal power. This is the power held by an individual through their internal resources: intellect, conscience, courage, determination, awareness, skill, and integrity.
The Employment of Power
Power can be employed in our interconnected context as power with, power over, or empowerment.
Power with is when multiple people combine the power they have access to, consensually, in order to meet shared objectives.
Power over is when one person or group uses another as a tool for their own power. In this mode, the other person’s needs, consent, and agency become secondary to the objective of the one exercising power.
Empowerment is when you grant power you have access to to another person, increasing their capacity without requiring your direct involvement or control.
Using Power With People or Objects
We always have a choice to see people as people or to see people as objects.
When we see people as people, we can only ethically employ power with or empowerment. We recognize their needs, agency, consent, and subjectivity.
It is only when we see people as objects that we use power over. In that moment, the person becomes a means to an end rather than a being with their own needs and dignity.
At any instance of conflict, where one or more needs are not being met, we necessarily must access power to change reality and serve life by meeting needs. However, the form of power we reach for determines whether our strategies become tragic or effective.
Power over is fundamentally a tragic strategy because it inevitably creates a reality where someone’s need for autonomy goes unmet. Even when it succeeds in achieving an immediate objective, it does so by sacrificing connection, consent, and mutual recognition.
Protective use of force complicates this picture. There may be moments where power over is necessary to prevent immediate harm, such as stopping a child from running into the street. But even then, the use of power over remains tragic. It may protect life, but it does so through unilateral action, not mutual consent. The ethical task is not to pretend this form of power is pure, but to use it only when necessary, with mourning, humility, and a commitment to return to connection as soon as possible.
If we can stay grounded in our own personal power, remain connected to the needs we are trying to meet, and stay committed to the possibility of power with, new strategies can appear. These strategies are not based on domination or control, but on the certainty that everyone’s needs matter and the trust that solutions can be found which serve life more fully.
