My Static Definition of Power

I spent quite a few hours reflecting on my diagnostic essay in anticipation of writing this response paper, simply because I could not locate areas in which my understanding of power had changed throughout the semester. In many ways, the original definition of power I proposed in my diagnostic essay has held. Unlike the various ancient Near Eastern empires, my characterization of power has not capitulated as we have traveled throughout the ages in NES R1B, its definition continuing to remain logical when applied to the temple in Uruk, The Epic of Gilgamesh, or the various kings of the Babylonian and Assyrian empires. Nevertheless, although NES R1B may not have altered my fundamental definition of power, it has certainly expanded my knowledge of power and caused me to question the inner workings of relationships involving the exchange of power.

The definition of power that I put forth in my diagnostic essay stated that “power results when one party holds influence over the lives of the members of another party due to something that the party with power possesses, whether it is wealth, social status, an image, or an idea.” Though there are certainly other qualities that the party with power may possess (e.g. military and political advantages according to Mann), which I neglected to mention in my diagnostic essay, I remain convinced in the validity of my general definition. All the readings we have looked at in this class only serve to support it. The temple in Uruk had power over the people because the temple had a monopoly over the people’s beliefs in the supernatural. King Hammurabi had power over his subjects because he controlled their loyalty and much of their means of subsistence. Examples from other readings in this class all fit into the “Party A had power over Party B because Party A had some advantage” scheme.

Nonetheless, as I mentioned earlier, NES R1B has caused me to think critically about the true meaning of power. In my diagnostic essay, I proposed that power could only occur in situations where at least one of the parties was sentient. However, I am curious to know if there could be a relationship where an inanimate object exerted power over another inanimate object. I have yet to think of one. In addition, this class has caused me to rethink statements such as “King Hammurabi was a powerful figure”. When I apply my definition of power to statements such as these, there is inevitably some relationship that the person is engaged in which gives him/her power. Even so, these statements have piqued my curiosity – is it possible for a person to have power without being in some relationship, that is, simply by virtue of their existence? It is an interesting point to ponder.