The Rhetoric of Power: The Case of Bettavalve Placid, Part 1
| Pages | 13-16 |
| Published date | 01 February 1986 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055069 |
| Date | 01 February 1986 |
| Author | Paul Kirkbride |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
The Rhetoric of
Power: The Case
of Bettavalve
Placid,
Part 1*
by Paul Kirkbride
Department of Business and Management,
City Polytechnic of Hong Kong
Introduction
Power forms part of the everyday common-sense language
and conceptual framework used by experts and laymen alike
to describe industrial relations processes and phenomena.
Yet, despite the obvious centrality and importance of power
to the study of industrial relations, it may be argued that
the concept represents a major lacuna in the theoretical
development of the discipline[1]. Thus, there is relatively little
literature in industrial relations which focuses directly on the
concept[2]. From a study of this literature, and the much
more voluminous and extensive work on power in other
disciplines (notably sociology, economics and political
science), one can discern two almost exclusive central
foci.
Firstly, there is one school of thought which conceptualises
power as an outcome or the result of some other process.
From this perspective, the power of social actors can only
be ascertained by an analysis of their effects on outcomes
or observable events. The second school sees power as a
material resource which can be possessed, stored and
deployed to achieve the goals of the actor. Whilst both these
approaches throw valuable light on some aspects of power,
it may be suggested that the predominance of these
con-
strained perspectives has resulted in the relative neglect of
other important aspects of power.
Indeed,
it may be argued that these established perspec-
tives completely ignore certain types of power situation. For
example, the power as outcome approach ignores the
possibility of a person or group, whether consciously or un-
consciously, preventing another from raising issues in the
decision-making arena. Power can just as easily be exercis-
ed by the processes of "mobilisation of bias" and "non-
decision making" which have been termed the "second
dimension"
of power[3l. Similarly, the notion of power as
outcome cannot conceptualise the possibility that the
supreme form of power is the ability to shape and mould
people's values in such a manner that they accept the status
quo, because they see it as beneficial, unchangeable, or the
"natural order". This has been referred to as the "three
dimensional" view of power[4]. The power as outcome ap-
proach is also rather a blunt
tool,
because it is, in effect,
an "all or nothing" analysis. Power is seen to be reflected
in the ability to "win" or "influence" decisions or issues.
Yet such a view ignores the fact that the "losing" party may
still have a substantial amount of power. Thus, while this
approach succeeds in mapping out the "winning" of dec-
isions, it fails to explain either the origins of the power which
made such "winning" possible or the process by which the
"win"
was achieved. In simple terms, this approach is
unable to say anything meaningful about situations in which
one party always "wins" contested issues, by virtue of its
dominant position.
The view of power as the control of resources is useful in
that it focuses attention on the factors that create power
and the fact that power can exist as the "potential" or
"capacity" for action. However, by virtue of the fact that
it concentrates on the "resource bases" of power, it relative-
ly neglects the "motive bases". Thus, it focuses on the
generation of power, rather than on why compliance oc-
curs.
As a result, this approach is unable to cope with situa-
tions in which resources are never, or rarely, mobilised and
with the concomitant issue of hegemony or ideological
domination. However, perhaps the major criticism of the
view of power as resource is that it relates power to struc-
tural relationships and positions but ignores their origins and
the process which created them.
This extremely brief review of the central strands of the
power literature has identified at least two areas of concern
and weakness. Firstly, how do resources become activated
and translated into outcomes or observable decisions? In
other words, how is the view of power as resource to be
linked with the view of power as outcome? By what pro-
cesses are resources mobilised to ensure the achievement,
or prevention, of a particular outcome? It can be argued,
therefore, that the existing literature has neglected the study
of power processes and action. Secondly, while certain
types of resources have been identified, there has been no
coherent attempt to conceptualise the different forms that
resources can take. In particular, linguistic resources as a
form of power have been comparatively neglected.
It has been suggested by several authors[5j that some of
these problems can be resolved theoretically by the theory
of "structuration". Briefly, the theory of structuration
iden-
tifies three different levels of social life: action, mediation
and structure. Power exists, at different times and in different
forms,
at all three levels of social life. Two different forms
of power can be delineated and tied to particular levels of
social experience — firstly, power as transformative capacity
which is located at the action level, and, secondly, power
as a structure of domination. These two different views can
be related via the concept of resources. Resources are the
media through which transformative capacity is utilised but
at the same time are structural elements, the distribution
of which reflects the prevailing structure of domination. In
addition,
there are certain ideological elements which are
related to these levels of social life. These are the concepts
of ideology, legitimising principles and rhetoric. It is argued
that transformative capacity is rendered meaningful by the
use of rhetoric and argumentation, whilst domination is sus-
tained by ideological means. Rhetoric can be defined as:
...a vocabulary of limited purpose; that is to say, it is a set of
symbols functioning to communicate a particular set of mean-
ings,
directed and organized toward the representation of a
specific image or impression[6],
*An earlier version of this article first appeared as Working Paper No 3,
Department of Business and Management, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
The author would like to thank Jim Durcan for his incisive comments on
an earlier draft while retaining sole responsibility for its contents.
ER 8,2 • 1986 13
To continue reading
Request your trial