Sara Cardona, Anna Prats, Daniel Pinedo, Helena Rodríguez and Kevin Martin Sandow Seminar II IR- 103/104 The concept of power Global Studies THE ELUSIVE DEFINITION OF POWER: Confronting the notions of power by Michael Barnett/Raymond Duvall and Robert Art Power is a contested concept which, although being core in the understanding of international relations, has not yet given a consensuated definition. In this essay the vision of three authors - Barnett/Duvall and Art - on power will be contrasted. Furthermore, the suitability of their definitions to the contemporary international system will be assessed; a final definition of power will be offered. Barnett and Duvall define power as a multileveled system in which they differentiate four main domains- Compulsory, Institutional, Structural and Productive-. The inherent isolation of these areas, or “cells”, differs from Art’s liquid interconnectedness between types of power. Art’s thesis pivots around fungibility, the capacity of a certain power to be “easily transferable from one policy realm to another”. However, Barnett’s and Duvall’s classification comes in juxtaposition with Art’s understanding of fungibility. Moreover, their arrangement of power is not centered, as it occurs in Art’s essay, in power assets - population, geography, governance, wealth, leadership and military power- but rather focuses on broader categories which encompass both the notions of “power over” and “power to” and tackle the agency-structure relation. Regarding Barnett’s and Duvall’s classification, a dual dichotomy arises; Direct vs Indirect and Interaction vs Social Constitution. The result is a separation of power in four areas; Compulsory, which, in a rather Dahlean fashion, the authors render as “direct control of one actor over (...) the actions of another”, although their notion of Compulsory power absorbs and expands Dahl’s definition by including non-intentional actions such as the victims of “collateral damage”. Institutional, on the other hand, is defined as indirect control, exerted in a “diffuse” manner, through “the formal and informal institutions that mediate between A and B”. Structural power differs from both Compulsory and Institutional in the sense that it operates in the realm of Social Constitution, or the “Decentralized Block”. Sara Cardona, Anna Prats, Daniel Pinedo, Helena Rodríguez and Kevin Martin Sandow The concept of power Seminar II IR- 103/104 Global Studies Structural power is essentially the internal constitution of the system, this is “the production and reproduction of internally related positions of super- and subordination, or domination, that actors occupy”. The very raison d’être of structural power is to be enforced through “direct structural relations”. The Productive dimension implies social structures operating beyond the control of certain agents, in “diffuse social processes''. Although Structural and Productive “cells'' recognise “constitutive social processes that are not controlled by specific actors”, the Direct vs Indirect dichotomy divides them. Duvall’s and Barnett’s conception is more suitable for the international system: it is broader, and does not link power exclusively to the figure of the state; power can be exerted diversely through plural means. Contrarily, Art’s conception- which could be equated to a more realist view using the Realism/Liberalism/Idealism trichotomy (Walt, 1998)- is purely focused on power from-through and towards states, obliviating the individual and the plurality of actors that conform the contemporary international system. Accordingly, it could be said that Barnett’s and Duvall’s theory somehow englobes Art’s, as the dynamics Art mentions are embodied in their classification of power. Nonetheless, the four-cells arrangement allows less movement, or fungibility, among and between the cells. Hindmost, the definition most suited to address power would be to understand it as the ability of a unit to influence the decisions and actions of other units, either through direct interactions or indirectly, within the international system operating within anarchy. Thus, a ‘unit’ does not need to be exclusively a state, but can also encompass a wide range of global actors - IGOs, transnational corporations and individuals. Moreover, power can be exerted directly- through hard power-, indirectly- through soft power-, or as a combination of both, which is known as smart power. Power, essentially, can be understood as a measure of influence, taking into consideration diverse dynamics- cooperation, coercion, competitiveness and integration. Word count: 599 Sara Cardona, Anna Prats, Daniel Pinedo, Helena Rodríguez and Kevin Martin Sandow Seminar II IR- 103/104 The concept of power Global Studies Notes ART, Robert: The Fungibility of Force (2003) (originally American Foreign Policy and the Fungibility of Force, Security Studies, vol. 5, N. 4, Summer 1996, p. 7-42), Ilford: Frank Cass & Company), included in ART, Robert J. y JERVIS, Robert: International Politics. Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues, 6th edition, Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc., p. 247- 262. BARNETT, Michael and DUVALL, Raymond (2005): Power in International Politics, International Organization 59 (1). RAIMZHANOVA, Aigerim. (2015). Power in IR. Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and the University of Bucharest WALT, Stephen M. (1998). One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy, No. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998)
