|
I need to reread her, as well, as I cannot make my memory of her writing work entirely with this power-as-consensus claim. Your "two levers," I think are interesting in that coercion is, in my experience of popular political argumentation, allowed to sneak in via a societal focus on physical violence ("force" in your terms?). Example: some leftists claim property violence is not violence because, paraphrasing, is does not harm the human body. Leaving aside the validity of this claim, the coerciveness of the act remains but is somehow able to pass the smell test in certain circles. I think this depends on one's perception of conflict, but that is a long discussion. Meanwhile, as you imply above, deception is clearly coercion, but much more effective in the longrun than physical violence. Deception generates belief congruent with the deceivers' attempt to acquire (more) power, which, once established, requires less maintenance than fear. Finally, there is nothing in the description of power as cited above that is necessarily free from coercion. If power simply means both individual and collective agency, then capturing agency via coercion is still an acquisition of power. |