Analysis Of Scott’s Theoretical Framework Of Domination And Power

One of the simplest definitions of power is that power is the production of causal effects. In Scott’s book Power (2001), he further explores the concept of power by operationalizing the social aspect of power. He argues that “power is a social relation between two agents”. The first agent is the principal and the second one is the subaltern. The principal exercises his power upon the subaltern, while the subaltern obeys the principal’s rule.

The principal can control the subaltern in many different ways through the implementation of different domination methods. In reality, this relationship between the principal and the subaltern is often very complex and unclear and the methods of domination are usually intertwined. For instance, in the online world, the roles of the principals and subalterns change rapidly. The internet is an enormous network which is composed of agents who present authority to one another using different methods of domination. For the purposes of this essay, I will first explore Scott’s theoretical framework in which we explains the various forms of domination and then further exemplify a specific form of domination through a personal experience of my friend.

First of all, Scott differentiates between elementary and developed forms of power. The elementary forms of power are divided into those with corrective influence and those with persuasive influence. The former entails forms of force and manipulation, while the latter entails forms of signification and legitimation. It is important to understand these elementary forms of power to get a grasp of the developed ones. Essentially, the developed forms of power are complex structures that are organized from the elementary ones. Moreover, Scott builds upon Machiavelli's (1513) and Pareto's (1916.) suggestions and introduces an animal as a symbol for each developed form of power. Firstly, coercion is seen as a characteristic of those who Machiavelli (1513) and Pareto (1916) called lions. Coercion is based upon both physical and psychological force, however, it doesn’t pursue it actively, but rather obtains its power through the subalterns’ fear of the force being used. Force only needs to be exercised as a last resort when the threat is challenged by the subalterns.

Secondly, inducement is a form of power which is associated with a fox. Inducement is based upon manipulation of the subalterns through “offering of rewards for conformity”. It is important to note that unless the principal stays true to his word and rewards the subalterns, there will eventually come an end to their obedience.

Moving on, domination through command rests on the compliance of subaltern based on the legitimacy of the principal. This form of domination is compared to a bear. The subaltern accepts the bear’s power because “it is accepted as being right, correct, justified or valid in some way”.

Finally, the type of domination executed through expertise is related to an owl. It is based on specific knowledge of the principal and rests on the trust of the subaltern and the acceptance of his own lack of competence. It is important for the owl to make sure that the knowledge it possesses is an esoteric monopoly so that it can avoid being challenged by the subalterns.

One of the first examples that comes to mind in regards to coercion is an experience my friend went through in 2016. At the time of this event, he was in a long distance relationship and became a heavy Facebook user in order to stay in touch with his girlfriend as much as possible. A couple of months into the relationship, he received an email from an anonymous source which had his and his girlfriend’s nude images attached. These images were obtained illegally through Facebook. The sender asked my friend for money each month, or else he would leak the aforementioned images to the public. Therefore, my friend started paying him monthly. He became the subaltern of a coercive domination he didn’t want to comply to. After a while, my friend couldn’t even bring food to school because he was saving money for the principal. He started selling his school supplies and books. After a couple of months, there was nothing else to sell and my friend couldn’t come through with enough money. The principal, then, posted one of his girlfriend’s photos on Facebook. This was enough motivation for my friend to find a job and each month give a part of his pay to the principal.

This case is a prime example of blackmail, a form of psychological coercion. Although there is no physical threat involved, there still is a threat of force, the threat of letting everyone around you see your naked body. That type of power can be even more damaging than that of physical violence. The principal in this example, the blackmailer, mostly portrayed characteristics of a lion. He convinced my friend that he possesses the means of power and is ready to use them if it comes to disobedience. However, as Foucault (1982.) argued, the subaltern needs to have freedoms in order for the principal to have real power. My friend was put in the position to choose either to resist power and face the consequences or step over his own interests and obey the blackmailer. At first, the principal didn’t even need to use power in order for the subaltern to obey him, but after my friend showed resistance for the first time, the blackmailer started exercising his power. Even though he didn’t post all pictures as he threatened to, posting just one made my friend reassured of how real the power he’s forced to conform to is.

In conclusion, although the blackmailer’s ideal type of power was best described as a lion, he also has elements of other forms of power, for instance, he behaves like a fox by giving the subaltern the reward of privacy as a result of compliance. As Scott (2001) explained in his book, coercion and inducement go hand in hand, there are both rewards and punishments in regards to the subaltern’s choice of action. This goes to prove that in the real world, ideal types do not exist, domination is most likely a mix of elements of more forms of power combined.