Power: then and now

Wow, reading over my essay from the beginning of the year was fun. My analysis of power was limited to its semantic properties and destinations (ex: individuals, the digestive system, the workplace). While I did briefly explore the example of a Manhattan doctor's relationship with power, the scope of my analysis of power was quite limited. This is a prime example of my lack of consideration, or perhaps even contemplation, before taking "NES R1B 004 Brown."

The conclusions of my analysis were as follows: authority is synonymous with power or, conversely, power exists in all things (living and non-living). Over the course of the semester, I have seen examples of these themes in ancient Mesopotamian history. For instance, kings in Uruk, Babylonia, and Assyria utilized their military might, diplomatic strategies, or economic prowess to exert control over others. Additionally, though, I think the rapid procession of "legitimate kings" in the Sargonid period serve as support for the assertion that power is contained in everything. Perhaps, to go a step further, the ancient Mesopotamian's association of celestial presence with inanimate objects and organisms of nature are also testaments to the existence of "power" in all things.

Now that I have absorbed several narratives and reviews of the goings-on in ancient Uruk, Babylonia, and Assyria, an essay prompt, such as "What is power?", would have a very different meaning to me. In this capacity, I suppose that Early Forms of Social Powerhas impacted my thought process associated with certain words in the English language. This, I think, is a very positive thing. Now, I am in a position of knowledge in regard to issues such as power, kingship, the organizations of power, divination, and Hammurabi. whereas before, my only knowledge of these terms was semantic or shallowly referential.

final thoughts on power

I defined power in the paper I
wrote earlier in the class as the following: Personal or internal strength,
right one possesses or is given, and authority one has over others. I found it
really interesting how I defined power on fundamentally very personal levels. All
of my definitions are involved with virtually one person and the power he or she might have.

Now when I look at this subject
again, I feel like my original definitions were rather shallow. The meaning of
power can in fact be extended far beyond those if viewed at a broader level. If
I had the chance to re-define “power,” I would say social, economic, and
political power. Actually, these definitions link right back to my original
definitions as well. After all, each individual is a part of the greater
society, thus his or her personal power can be interpreted as an element of the
whole.

Furthermore, I now think that power
does not have to belong to any specific person. In fact most of the time power
is shared within an organization or group. For example, the temple in Uruk, as
an institution, possessed power in all aspects. They were able to collect food,
labor, and service from people by employing the power. By doing so, they
operated the economy of the society, regulated its social order, and had
absolute political control.

I also now feel that power is a
more concrete idea than I thought before. Power does not come out of thin air;
it can be obtained as well as lost. Linking back to the example of Uruk, even
though the temple exercised its power on people by requiring so much from them,
the temple itself was required to provide protection and stabilization for the
citizens as well. In a sense, it can be said that the average citizens
possessed some power to keep the temple in control as well. It’s not to say
that one-sided power does not exist. But thus power is very volatile and
unstable.

But there is one point in my
diagnostic that I’d like to keep: power is spatially and geographically uneven
and differentiable. Power can be defined in many different ways under various
political and social circumstances in different parts of the world. Therefore,
there will never exist a standard measurement of how much power one really
possesses; different conclusions can always be drawn when looking at different
cases.

Sorry I totally forgot
to submit this on time!

Power from Our Biology

Although I have gotten a chance to think more deeply about the dynamics of power in the social world, my views about power have not changed much since the beginning of the class, they have only been strengthened. I believe that almost all human motivation comes from biological origins. For example, we only pursue romantic relationships so that we can eventually reproduce and have offspring. We only go to school and get jobs in order to make money that will allow us to satisfy basic human needs such as eating, drinking, health care, and even sexuality. This may seem slightly radical, but I believe that although we are not constantly thinking about our biological needs, we are biological beings, and most of our motivations come from our biology.

That being said, I believe all applications of social power have something to do with human biology. One human wouldn’t let another human control him unless he thinks it will somehow benefit him to comply with the power. For this reason I would argue that military and economic sources of power are the most prominent in the social world. Military power is the strongest because the primary objective of humans is survival, so when one is faced with the possibility of death, they are likely to comply. Economic power is also extremely important because economic wealth directly translates to the fulfillment of human needs such as nutrition and health. Because economic and military powers are so closely related to biological motivations, I believe they are the ultimate sources of social power. Although we had never directly learned this from our studies of the ancient empires, I have thought about power in this context for the duration of the course.

Addition to Definition of Power

Ronak Patel

Near Eastern Studies R1B

Response Paper; Reflecting on Diagnostic Paper

At the beginning of the semester each person in the class had to write a diagnostic essay on the meaning of power. As I look over what I wrote back then, I realize that the description I gave was very vague and lacked the necessary specificity necessary to apply it to all the different historical events we have learned about in this course.

Throughout the semester we learned about four sources of power: economic power, political power, military power, and ideological power. This is a much more informative definition of power than the one I provided in my diagnostic essay. It sets criteria to judge power instead of keeping it vague in terms of the modern day outlook of power.

When writing the diagnostic essay I was thinking of power in terms of humane power. Meaning, I intuitively took note of military, political, and economic power, which humans usually possess, but I disregarded anything close to ideological power. This may have been due to my lack of understanding how far the definition of power actually extends. The focus of this class was on the Ancient Near East, and many of the readings and research we did had numerous examples of how ideological power affected the region from the initial buildup of communities to the eventual emergence of empires. Consequently, even more entities can be considered to be in a position of power than I initially thought. It adds another element to power and that is perception. No one in the Ancient Near East or even to this day knows if anything they worship is a reality, but it is the perception of that reality that keeps humans loyal to a higher power.

At the same time this course also re-emphasizes how large sums of power reside in a small group of individuals. Most of the course revolved around the power of kingship, the temple, the oracles, and the pantheon of gods. Very little was mentioned about the possibilities of power in the hands of commoners. This may be because there was very little evidence about the lives of commoners in the Ancient Near East, but it may also be due to the fact that very few commoners ever gained enough status or recognition to achieve a position of power.

Though my definition of power was very broad and did not include many of the elements we learned about in this course, I feel like I was on the right track because I understood that those who have power usually have some type of control. Power is something that is circumstantial and must be considered within certain spatial and temporal parameters. At the same time I realize that I still have more to learn about the true extent of power and its relevance to the past, present, and future.

Still the Physics Definition

After a semester of exploring the meaning of the word power in the context of the ancient Near East, I still feel that a good general definition of power is the ability to do work over time. While we have explored the meaning of power in the context of leadership, for example Mann’s four types of power, but the word takes more meanings outside of that context. While more specific definitions are useful in specific contexts, they have limits when trying to apply the word to other situations it is used in. Thus I feel the more all-encompassing a definition is, the more powerful (it can get the most understanding across in the least amount of time).

The main definitions of power we worked with in this course were laid out by Michael Mann, who defined political, military, economic, and ideological power. For example, military power was defined as a form of control by force, to drastically summarize. These definitions proved useful in talking about social systems and the ways that people were made to do work, but they can’t be used beyond the context of leadership and control. For example, it would be difficult to categorize the power of food or alcohol over people using Mann’s definitions.

While I don’t mean to argue that specific and contextualized definitions are groundless, I think that to define the word power with one single definition, a very broad one is necessary. And I think that the ability to do work over time is just that. I think one would be hard pressed to find a correct use of the word power that doesn’t describe an ability for something to do work. Hammurabi was powerful because of his ability to move massive armies effectively and establish a powerful code of law in his reign. Gilgamesh was powerful because of his ability to do amazing physical feats (work) that no one else could do in any amount of time. I think the physics definition is the most powerful definition of power.

The Power to Change

At first I was thinking of power in a mechanical sense, and how a machine generating power is analogous to a political system. While much of what I said I still believe, in that there must be an uneven distribution of power for a system to function, there is now many other variables at play in the production and maintenance of power in the political systems of the ancient Mesopotamian societies. Factors such as religious inputs provide an in balance that causes the power distribution to be fixed within the leaders of the society, which was the king. While the power systems still function similarly to a machine, they are influenced by factors such as religion so that the in balance of power does not fluctuate and does not allow for changes.
In my research I have found that king's would manipulate the truth to depict themselves as the one favored by the gods, and would even alter the documentation of history to ensure their divine support was maintained. Practices such as these are what allow the system to generate power and function as a whole, because if a king lost power every time an omen appeared in ill favor, or the king failed in a military conquest, the ruler would be switched out so frequently that the balance of power would be thrown out of alignment and the system would fail. This would cause the country to be very unstable and vulnerable.

What I've Learned about Power

What I wrote in my dialogistic paper on what power is was essentially this: that in addition to a strong leader, power needs the support of many and the backup of sound finances in order to survive as a strong force. Power is also a delicate entity, because too much of it can consume a person and turn him from a judicious king into a tyrant. I still believe that power is all of this, but my understanding of power has expanded after this semester. Taking Michael Mann’s argument, I have come to learn that the source of power is derived from 4 things: political, economical, military, and theological. Each Mesopotamian king may have really excelled in one area of power, but in order to really truly thrive as a leader, each ruler would have ideally embodied all four sources of power.

For example, King Hammurabi of Babylon, who was mostly notable as a law giver, also used political power to organize his alliances, military power to decide what nation to conquer, and theological power by paying homage to the gods in his law code. (And of course, he used political power through his laws as well as the treaties he signed with neighboring nations). Shamshi-Adad of Upper Mesopotamian, too, utilized all four sources of power to an extent, but was probably most well known for his political move to split and share his land holding with his two sons.

One thing that has changed about my perception of power is the use of artwork to depict a king’s majesty. Whereas before I may have understood a portrait of a European king to be a sign of his power, deciphering the carvings of Mesopotamia took a slightly different turn for me. Some of the details, such as Naram-Sin as a giant, may be more obvious, but others, such as the inclusion of the severed head, may be more subtle in showing the might and power of a king.