15
1
1.6 Sixth Synthesis: Different Types of Power
Power is a central theme in political ecology. For example, Robbins (2004:12)
defines political ecology as ‘empirical, research-based explorations to explain
linkages in the condition and change of social/environmental systems, with
explicit consideration of relations of power’. Likewise, Paulson et al. (2005:28)
write that ‘the political’ in political ecology is ‘used to designate the practices
and processes through which power, in its multiple forms, is wielded and negotiated.’
Much political ecology research is carried out as studies of specific conflicts
over use of land and natural resources. Investigations are made of causes of the
conflicts, and how they evolve. In analyses of power, the researchers apply various
combinations of three main perspectives on power. These are actor-oriented power
theories and two types of structure oriented theories. We argue that in order to
understand power in specific cases, elements from all these three perspectives must
be examined (Svarstad et al. 2018).
In studies of conflicts, it is often useful to start with an actor-oriented focus
analysing how the different actors involved try to influence environmental governance and establish to what extent various actors succeed and reasons for successes
and failures. Some actors may be local, while others may be located in the capital
of the country or other distant places.
In the social sciences, there are many actor-oriented power theories. For
instance, Russel (1938) defined power as the ability to produce intended effects.
This may sometimes be possible to do more or less independently of other actors.
If you are hungry and thirsty and live in an affluent society, most people are able to
produce intended effects by grabbing a slice of bread or a glass of water without
directly involving anybody else. But power does usually involve others.
For example, Max Weber provided a classic contribution to actor-oriented
power theories. He defined power as the ability of individuals to realize their
will despite resistance from others (Weber 1964). Robert Dahl (1957) gives an
example of actor-oriented power theory in which actor A exercises power over
actor B, when A can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do. An
extreme version of such power arises when someone is forced to do something,
which they are strongly against. Such exercise of power is to be found when
powerful actors force people to move from their home place in connection with
the establishment of a new protected area - or because of a mining operation,
as in Avatar.
In the actor-oriented power perspective presented by the Norwegian sociologist, Fredrik Engelstad, a ‘strong’ concept of power is at the same time intentional, relational and result-orientated. Intentionality implies that power is
exercised through the actions undertaken by someone to achieve something.
Relationality means that it is about action that happens in the relations between
two or more actors. Result-orientation (causality) implies that the actions performed have a desired effect. Cases where only two of the three dimensions of
power are present, Engelstad also sees as involving power, but of weaker kinds
(Engelstad 1999).
1.6 · Sixth Synthesis: Different Types of Power
1
1.6 Sixth Synthesis: Different Types of Power
Power is a central theme in political ecology. For example, Robbins (2004:12)
defines political ecology as ‘empirical, research-based explorations to explain
linkages in the condition and change of social/environmental systems, with
explicit consideration of relations of power’. Likewise, Paulson et al. (2005:28)
write that ‘the political’ in political ecology is ‘used to designate the practices
and processes through which power, in its multiple forms, is wielded and negotiated.’
Much political ecology research is carried out as studies of specific conflicts
over use of land and natural resources. Investigations are made of causes of the
conflicts, and how they evolve. In analyses of power, the researchers apply various
combinations of three main perspectives on power. These are actor-oriented power
theories and two types of structure oriented theories. We argue that in order to
understand power in specific cases, elements from all these three perspectives must
be examined (Svarstad et al. 2018).
In studies of conflicts, it is often useful to start with an actor-oriented focus
analysing how the different actors involved try to influence environmental governance and establish to what extent various actors succeed and reasons for successes
and failures. Some actors may be local, while others may be located in the capital
of the country or other distant places.
In the social sciences, there are many actor-oriented power theories. For
instance, Russel (1938) defined power as the ability to produce intended effects.
This may sometimes be possible to do more or less independently of other actors.
If you are hungry and thirsty and live in an affluent society, most people are able to
produce intended effects by grabbing a slice of bread or a glass of water without
directly involving anybody else. But power does usually involve others.
For example, Max Weber provided a classic contribution to actor-oriented
power theories. He defined power as the ability of individuals to realize their
will despite resistance from others (Weber 1964). Robert Dahl (1957) gives an
example of actor-oriented power theory in which actor A exercises power over
actor B, when A can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do. An
extreme version of such power arises when someone is forced to do something,
which they are strongly against. Such exercise of power is to be found when
powerful actors force people to move from their home place in connection with
the establishment of a new protected area - or because of a mining operation,
as in Avatar.
In the actor-oriented power perspective presented by the Norwegian sociologist, Fredrik Engelstad, a ‘strong’ concept of power is at the same time intentional, relational and result-orientated. Intentionality implies that power is
exercised through the actions undertaken by someone to achieve something.
Relationality means that it is about action that happens in the relations between
two or more actors. Result-orientation (causality) implies that the actions performed have a desired effect. Cases where only two of the three dimensions of
power are present, Engelstad also sees as involving power, but of weaker kinds
(Engelstad 1999).
1.6 · Sixth Synthesis: Different Types of Power