❔DESCRIBE THE DIFFERENT MODES OF POWER.

EXPLAIN HOW
POWER IS IMPLICATED IN ORGANIZATION AND SIGNIFICATION.

INTRODUCTION

Power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position
to carry out his own will despite resistance regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.
Sociologists have a distinctive approach to studying governmental power that differs from the
perspective of political scientists. For the most part, political scientists focus on studying how
power is distributed in different types of political [Link] centuries, philosophers,
politicians, and social scientists have explored and commented on the nature of [Link]
scholars adopt the definition developed by German sociologist Max Weber, who said that power
is the ability to exercise one’s will over [Link] affects more than personal relationships; it
shapes larger dynamics like social groups, professional organizations, and [Link]
power is not as straightforward as one might [Link] is encountered every day and every
hour.

There are various forms of power, each relating to a different level of social relations:
from power attributed to the endowment of the individual person to power produced in
interpersonal relationships to tactical or organizational power set in motion to direct or limit the
action of others to structural power that shapes society's thrusts. The relationship between
structural power and organizational power aids in the explanation of the environment one lives
in. Eric Wolf was another prominent anthropologist who dealt with issues of power. He
distinguishes between four modalities of power: 1. Power inherent in an individual; 2. Power as
capacity of ego to impose one's will on alter; 3. Power as control over the contexts in which
people interact; 4. Structural power. By this, he means the power manifested in connections that
not only functions inside settings and domains but also organizes and orchestrates the settings
themselves, and that specifies the direction and distribution of energy flows," the author writes.
Wolf dismisses the notion of culture that sprang from the counter-Enlightenment based on his
prior experiences and subsequent research. He suggests a new definition of culture that places
 1

more emphasis on things like authority, variety, ambiguity, contradiction, and imperfectly shared
meaning and knowledge.

Eric Wolf enumerates the four different modes of power as:

Power as the attribute of the person: this refers to power as potency or capacity which
draws attention to the endowment of persons in the play of power. However, this
definition does not engage with the question of what form and direction of power. power

as an individual attribute, capability, e.g., strength, knowledge, energy, the sorts of things that enable
us to do things in the world.

Power as the ability of ego to impose its will on an alter; this occurs in social or
interpersonal relations. This understanding of power deals with a sequence of interactions
and transactions among people but does not address the question of how the interactions
go forward. The ability of one individual to impose their will on another. In Weber's
terms, it's the ability to carry out one's will despite resistance. Relational because it
involves at least two individuals. Examples: physically dominating another person;
parent-child relationship where parent directs child to behave in certain ways. This also
draws attention to the sequence of interactions and transactions among people, but it does
not address the nature of the arena in which the interactions go forward.

Tactical or Organisational Power: power that controls the settings in which people show
their potential and interact. This idea is drawn from Richard Adam’s definition of power
as not something interpersonal but as control that one actor exercises over energy flows
that constitute the environment of another actor. This idea of power tries to understand
how one actor (operational unit) circumscribes the actions of others within determinate
settings. The authority one person or group has over another person or group of people
when it comes to controlling a social environment. not just two people, but a group of
people in a social setting. Examples include: boss over employees; teachers over students
(teachers determine content and grades) (control wages and access to employment). Since
a person or group of individuals are believed to have power over others in this situation,
power is exercised through a hierarchical social arrangement, and as a result, members of
the organisation behave in accordance with this social arrangement.
 2

Structural Power: This idea of power refers to forces that not only operate within
settings/domains but those which organise and orchestrate the settings themselves in
addition to specifying the distribution and direction of energy flows. Marx refers to this
idea when he discusses the power of capital over labour-power and Foucault calls this “to
govern” or the exercise of ‘action upon action.” The ability to organise (i.e., structure)
social situations in which actions occur. Not necessarily directed by a single person or
group of persons, but by a larger, historical system. Capitalism; nation-states; imperialism
are some examples. For Wolf, structural power is a way of explaining human acts in ways
that are sensitive to the global interconnectivity of human societies while also noting that
human behaviors are always located inside and impacted by histories. According to Wolf,
the fourth type of power is what governs the "political economy." The phrase "the social
relations of production" is rephrased using the term "structural power," emphasizing the
ability to allocate and use social labour. According to Wolf, structural power is
operationalized to shape the social field of action, making some behaviors viable while
making others less or completely impossible. Structural power shapes the social field of
action so as to render some kinds of behavior possible, whole making others less possible
or impossible. As old Georg Friedrich Hegel argued, what occurs in reality has first to be
possible.

ORGANIZATION
Wolf emphasises the significance of organisation because it not only establishes
interpersonal connections through which resources and rewards are allocated and controlled, but
also because it uses tactical power to monopolise, share, and channel action into specific
pathways while impeding the flow of action in others. Power dynamics are always shifting, and
even the most successful organisations are not immune to opposition. This puts organisations at
danger. Because of this, conflict always arises in organisations. Wolf notes that anthropology has
abandoned the study of organisation despite the significance of organisation. It is frequently
presented to anthropology students as static classifications of gender, generation, clan, etc., as a
 3

result, a completed object rather than as something with an active voice or as a process that is
fraught with conflict. The tactical power that creates, sustains, undermines, or even destroys
organisations is not emphasised. According to Wolf, anthropology has transformed
organisational outcomes into the fundamental elements of social structure, as demonstrated by
the idea of unilineal descent groups. Although the idea aided anthropologists in their research of
group membership, descent, rights, obligations, etc., it is crucial to avoid getting sucked into it
and expecting unilineal descent groups to manifest in these terms with these exact attributes. He
claims that looking at "the flow of action" and asking "what is going on" and "why is it going"
are two ways to transition from seeing an organisation as a product to a process. This is in line
with Conrad Arensberg's suggestion. In addition, one must inquire "for what, for whom, and
against whom" is all of this happening. Wolf adds that it's critical to comprehend what goes into
conceptualising organisation as a process. The organisational potential of different contracts and
networks varies. Thus, it is yet unknown how various groups of individuals might be brought
together and articulated under various structural authorities. It is also crucial to expand on the
theories and frameworks of anthropology rather than considering them to be set in stone and
relevant to all situations. For instance, Michel Verdon challenged lineage theory by using it as a
research methodology rather than an archetype, and Timothy Earle inspired anthropologists to
view chiefdoms as fragile negotiated institutions that secure compliance through competition and
inspired researchers to examine the combination of economic, political, and ideological strategies
used by chiefdoms. Likewise, the state has come to be seen more as a process than as a physical
entity throughout time.

SIGNIFICATION

Wolf believes that when studying a society it is important to critically study

signification because there is power in signification. Signification, he says, has primarily been
studied in terms of cultural unities, such as patterns, configurations, ethos, etc. and these unities
are understood to be outcomes of logical and aesthetic integration in a particular society. Wolf
questions this approach of understanding signification. Anthony Wallace, who advocated for
examining all societies as multiple societies, is cited by Wolf. Although it is a common belief
 4

among anthropologists that cultural logic regulates and controls all social differences, Wolf
claims that he does not share this belief. Wolf contends that the underlying signifiers in these
polarities are numerous and need to be distilled. Anthropologists rely on field informants to
highlight metaphorical polarities such as yin and yang, purity and pollution. However, this
indexing or focusing is not an automatic process; rather, it involves power and power struggles.
According to Wolf, it is frequently assumed that people in societies just react correctly to the
cues given by others and that the meaning underlying behaviour should not be studied. However,
it becomes obvious that the underlying behaviour, beyond logic and aesthetics, is actually power
in circumstances where conflicting interests are brought to the forefront and cultural schemata
are challenged. Wolf asserts that "power is implicated in meaning," emphasising how this power
favours one interpretation of significance over others that it deems false. Every culture carves out
a unique importance and works to stabilise it in comparison to other options. Wolf refers to
Rappaport who believed that all cultural orders have basic arbitrariness and are anchored in
postulates that are neither verified nor falsified but treated as unquestionable because they are
considered as sacred. Wolf adds to this argument by saying that these symbolic works can in fact
be questioned and can come unstuck and therefore cultural assertions that the world is shaped
this and not in some other is repeated and enacted. This is exemplified by the Chinese Doctrine
of “rectification of names.”
CONCLUSION

● Eric Wolf in his essay discusses tactical and structural power in relation to study of
political economy while also making a case for broadening anthropology’s scope beyond
just translating and interpreting societies but going as far as explaining cultural
phenomena. He mainly focuses on the four modes of power;- One is power as the
attribute of the person, as potency or capability. The second kind of power can be
understood as the ability of an ego to impose its will on an alter, in social action, in
interpersonal relations. The third mode is as power that controls the settings in which
people may show forth their potentialities and interact with others. This kind of power is
tactical or organizational power. The fourth mode of power is called structural power.
Organization is key, because it sets up relationships among people through allocation and
control of resources and rewards. It draws on tactical power to monopolize or share out
 5

liens and claims, to channel action into certain pathways while interdicting the flow of
action into others. Some things become possible and likely; others are rendered unlikely.
At the same time, organization is always at risk. Since power balances always shift and
change, its work is never done; it operates against entropy. Wolf has also addressed the
issue of power in [Link] is implicated in meaning through its role in
upholding one version of significance as true, fruitful, or beautiful, against other
possibilities that may threaten truth, fruitfulness, or beauty. All cultures, however
conceived, carve out significance and try to stabilize it against possible alternatives. In
human affairs, things might be different, and often are. Eric Wolf has clearly explained
the four modes of power and its implication in the organization and signification.
REFERENCE

➔ WOLF, ERIC 1990. ‘FACING POWER- OLD INSIGHTS, NEW

QUESTIONS’,AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, NEW SERIES, VOL.92, NO.3,pp.
586-596