A Powerful Reflection

Ritik Malhotra

Near Eastern Studies R1B Lecture 4

Response Paper: Reflection on Diagnostic Essay

A Powerful Reflection

Upon reflecting on my initial diagnostic essay, I have found that my writing style has more or less remained the same. Over the course of this class, although I did learn new research techniques and new ways of integrating sources, I continued to use the same writing style as before, as I thought it to be most effective in getting my point across. However, on this note, I have noticed that the sources I used in my diagnostic essay are not entirely credible in nature and the way I integrated them into my paper is not the most effective way of doing so.

Regarding the actual content of my essay, I talked about two prominent and powerful figures, Bernie Madoff and Bill Gates, and how they were able to exercise their power in bad and good ways respectively. Since then, my view on power has greatly been expanded, as I have learned more about the many different forms of power (social, ideological, etc. as Mann and other authors would describe them as) and is no longer a narrow-minded concept in my head. This made me realize that my analysis of power in my diagnostic essay is highly primitive and is a very general overview of what it really is. While lots of the forms of power that we discussed in this class can be placed in the two categories of good and evil power that I discussed in my essay, I now realize that there is much more depth and detail to such a concept after going through this class.

Overall, while I may not be a Near Eastern Studies major, I am very glad that I was able to expand my horizons through this class. Apart from just the raw knowledge that I gained from the texts and discussions in this class, I also gained insight into thinking in a different way, which is clearly exemplified by the comparison of my way of thinking about power initially to how it is now.

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.

An Oversimplification of Power

Looking back at my diagnostic paper, I am surprised to see that I actually cited three different sources in it. I remember actually having a hard time defining power on my own, so I automatically looked to the opinions of scholars to help me write my paper. However, when I read my paper, I feel like I did not really make an argument of my own. I did not come up with my own definition; rather I used the opinions of the scholars I cited. My paper was pretty much a paraphrasing of the three works that are cited on the last page. The only “argument” I made in my paper was that power is hard to define, and that in order to define it you must take the four parts of power defined by Dahl into consideration. I did not come up with my own genuine opinion on what power is; I restated what others had to say on the matter. Plus, the definition that I gave was a pretty general one. When comparing my definition of power with the examples of power that we have seen in this class this semester, I feel like I oversimplified and generalized what power is in my paper. For example, I did not even mention power from religious ideology, which is something that we talked about a lot during class. The temple was able to take the surplus from the people of Uruk because of the ideological justification: the people were providing for the gods. Kings of ancient Mesopotamia were able to justify many of their actions, such as waging wars, by saying that they had the support of the gods. The kings, priests/priestesses, and the “temple” derived a lot of power from their religious ideologies.

Self respect and Power

My first idea of power was dependent upon respect from others, whether forced respect or earned respect. I find that this is true of power in all of Mann’s sectors: economic, ideological, political, and military. However I question now what the notion of power means to an individual. It is surely possible to define power within a person who is in solitude, and lacks respect from others. I still would like to keep my claim about respect as a fuel for power,so an individual in solitude must rely on their own self-respect. For example, material resources can provide an outlet to power, especially for an individual in a survival situation. A lone person may feel a greater sense of power if resources are available to them, as their self-respect fuels their need for survival. Trying to survive takes the future into account, much like some of Hammurabi’s powerful actions. His law code and proclamations of himself as a King of Justice were not meant to be known in the present and future. Hammurabi's own self respect may have produced such laws and claims regardless of the current respect of others, but the future is still a motivating factor for producing them. Thus the motivation of possible respect in the future can also fuel power, whether it comes from self-respect to live another day or hope of remembrance by others for what one had accomplished.

Defining Power

I couldn’t even define power in my first essay. In my first essay, I talked about how even the common people has the power to change the world, not only the heads-of-state. I can already see the problems of my claim after spending the entire semester studying different forms of social power. First of all, I did not even define power. Secondly, I did not define what “common people” was. After spending the entire semester writing about the different forms of power and defining the different forms of states (city-states, territorial-state, empires), I can finally appreciate the need to define these larger- than-life terms that cannot be simply defined through a Webster’s. Terms like political, social, economic, and military power were the basis of the arguments of my previous two essays. By defining power, I avoided ambiguity and circular logic.

I can finally appreciate Mann’s “Sources of Social Power”. Mann saved me in writing every single one of my essay. Despite his long and very obvious claims, his definition of power is very uncontroversial. It is so neutral that it can be used to define power in my essays.

When I first thought of power, I did not think of how a head-of-state can achieve power. Military and economic power was a very obvious source for me. But I have never though of ideological and political power as a source.

At the risk of sounding pretentious, I will boldly and maybe naively make the next claim. Being more of a math and science person, I can finally appreciate the need for logic and vigorous analysis in writing research papers for a humanities class. I couldn’t “b.s.” my way out of the essays I wrote for this class. (That’s what I did for my first essay.) I actually had to do research and know my stuff. I had to form my analysis from the facts.

Farewell, Near Eastern Studies R1B. Thank you for the 3am nights before the due date of an essay.

Power and More Power

Power is often thought of having the ability do more than the next guy. The idea that there is a disparity of power between two parties show how much worth a party has. That is the basic idea that lies in every aspect of power. In this class, we saw that power comes in many different forms as we saw it in economic power from Liverani, military power in Joanne's Age of Empires, and in political power in Mieroop's Hammurabi. In each case, each described the way in which power was created and the effects of power. For Liverani, it was the barely and wool industry that make Uruk into the first known city of the ancient world. By providing surplus, Uruk was able to use it for other gains such as trading goods. This is how they obtained economic power. In Mieroop's work, Hammurabi used his diplomatic skills to create a set of law codes that won the approval of the people and make Hammurabi popular. His ability to deal with other city-states also allowed Hammurabi to make Babylonia into a powerful state, with him at the head. In the case with Joanne's work, conquest of territory showed off military power, as the Babylonians and Assyrians would dominate Mesopotamia with their military success.
From my diagnostic, I talked mostly about democracy and the system of equal responsibility between two parties, say the government and its people, but that is a very specific case and could apply to many different aspects of social power. Power isn't just limited to governments, but also reaches all topics such as political, economical, and military. Therefore, power is seen as the ability to do more because of a certain attribute. Because of this difference in ability, power is defined and gives that party more.
My perspective on power has changed from a simple concept to a more sophisticated concept that touches upon many different aspects. Power cannot be simply defined, but it needs to be defined in the context of which it used as.