Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Power contestationssi ISIRC_Flor Avelino_03.09.2018

18 views

Published on

Presentation on Power Contestations and what different theories of power mean for social innovation research at the International Social Innovation Research Conference, Heidelberg, 3-5th of September 2018

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Power contestationssi ISIRC_Flor Avelino_03.09.2018

  1. 1. date / location September 3rd 2018 #ISIRC2018 Heidelberg Power Contestations: what different theories of power mean for social innovation research Painting: “Tryptich” By Mark Rothko Dr. Flor Avelino DRIFT, Erasmus University Rotterdam avelino@drift.eur.nl @FlorAvelino @DRIFTeur
  2. 2. Power Self-interest Collective Goals actors structures
  3. 3. Copy? Email: avelino@drift.eur.nl
  4. 4. 1. Power ‘over’ vs. power ‘to’ 2. Centred vs. diffused 3. Consensual vs. conflictual 4. Constraining vs. enabling 5. Power = knowledge vs. power ≠ knowledge 6. Empowerment vs. disempowerment 7. Power as means vs. power as end in itself Not choose sides but ask the right questions… Seven power contestations
  5. 5. Power diffused centred
  6. 6. 1. Dahl (1958) – beyond ruling elites 2. Bachrach & Baratz (1962) – agenda-setting 3. Lukes (1974) – preference shaping Three faces of power
  7. 7. How are 3 faces of power manifested in/for social innovation? How is power decentralised and/or (re)centralised?
  8. 8. Changing power relations between state, market, civil society = social innovation in itself. Decentralisation in one place can lead to (re)centralisation elsewhere (and visa versa). How and where is power (de)/(re)centralized? STATE (government) MARKET (business) CIVIL SOCIETY (communites & non-profit)
  9. 9. • WhiteWashing • GreenWashing • WeWashing? • AirBnB, Uber, etc.
  10. 10. Power consensual conflictual
  11. 11. Violence as “the most concentrated, if bluntest, instrument of human power”. (Mann [1986]2002:177) Violence can destroy power, but “is utterly incapable of creating it”, and “power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent”. (Arendt [1969] 2002:143).
  12. 12. “Subjection is not only obtained by the instruments of violence or ideology; it can also be direct, physical, pitting force against force, bearing on material elements, and yet without involving violence; it may be calculated, organized, technically thought out; it may be subtle, make use neither of weapons nor of terror and yet remain a physical order”. (Foucault [1975] 2002:192).
  13. 13. Which conflicts are hidden under seeming consensus? What is oppressive about consensus ? What is emancipatory about conflict ?
  14. 14. Power enabling (agency) constraining (structure)
  15. 15. “In its most general sense, power is (…) the ‘can’ which mediates the desired or intended outcomes of social actors and the actual realization of these outcomes in their daily social practices”. (Davis et al. [1991] 2002:214)
  16. 16. “Individuals are the vehicles of power” (Foucault 1980:101) ‘Automated’ and ‘disindividualised’ power: material or ideological structures are “creating and sustaining a power relation independent of the person who exercises it”. (Foucault ([1975]2002: 196)
  17. 17. Panopticon…
  18. 18. How are which structures constraining and/or enabling us? Which structures can we use for social innovation? Which structures can/should be changed, and how?
  19. 19. Power power as an end power as means
  20. 20. Beyond ownership?
  21. 21. What are (un)intended power implications of social innovation? What kind of power relations do we want in the future?
  22. 22. 1. Power ‘over’ vs. power ‘to’ 2. Centred vs. diffused 3. Consensual vs. conflictual 4. Constraining vs. enabling 5. Power = knowledge vs. power ≠ knowledge 6. Empowerment vs. disempowerment 7. Power as means vs. power as end in itself Not choose sides but ask the right questions… Seven power contestations
  23. 23. power as capacity is ought can be
  24. 24. power as incapacity is ought cannot be
  25. 25. power as (in)capacity is ought can(not) be (in)capacity of actors to mobilise means to achieve ends dialectic understanding of power
  26. 26. paradoxes of power & (dis)empwerment
  27. 27. Thank you! Dr. Flor Avelino DRIFT, Erasmus University Rotterdam avelino@drift.eur.nl @FlorAvelino

×