This review is drawn from (Hasan, Sacha. 2012, Civil Society Participation in Urban Development in Syria).
The concept ‘power’ and its analysis has been a topic of debate in social sciences since the 1960s. The debate became further complicated when ‘power’ was associated with ‘participation’ and the concept ‘empowerment’ was introduced. This is due to the idea that ‘participation’ provides ‘power’ to the powerless and enables them to realize their potential (Nelson, et al., 1995). Power is described as “access to resources, control of the elements and processes of production, and rights to dispose of products are experienced in face to face relations” within a wider and systematic economic relations. “How people stand in relation to each other in these systems is described as power”. Therefore, “power is a description of relations, not a ‘thing’ which people have” (Nelson, et al., 1995 pp. 7-8).
Literature introduced three models of power – power to; power over; and power through (Jenkins, 2007; Nelson, et al., 1995). The model ‘power to’ suggests that “power can grow infinitely if you work at it, and growth of one person does not necessarily negatively affect another” (Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 8). Thus, power is a generative and transformative personal attribute which can be developed via capacity and knowledge building within social relations, where people undergo and exercise power (Hartsock, 1990). However, empowerment in this is understood as a “multi-dimensional social process that helps people gain control over their own lives. It is a process that fosters power in people for use in their own lives, their communities and in their society, by acting on issues they define as important” (Page, et al., 1999).
In contrast to the expression of growth used in ‘power to’ model, ‘power over’ involves “gaining access to ‘political’ decision-making, often in public forums” where power is a ‘thing’ of “a finite amount in a closed system”. In this, gaining power would be at the expense of others. (Jenkins, 2007; Nelson, et al., 1995). Power in this was found in observable conflicts where one party dominated the other and made them do “what they would not otherwise have done” (Dahl, 1961; Polsby, 1963; Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 9). Another image to express power in this model was found in invisible conflicts where “one party established barriers which prevented others from voicing their interests, let alone getting them on the agenda” (Bachrach, et al., 1970; Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 9). A third image of power in this model was to give the dominant party interests a “god-given” nature where no alternative to the situation quo was possible (Lukes, 1974; Nelson, et al., 1995). ‘Power over’, therefore, expressed power to be coercive and centred in the governmental institutions. In this, empowerment happens when power is taken from one party to be given to another – i.e. the sum of power is always a “zero sum” (Jenkins, 2007; Nelson, et al., 1995).
The third model of power is ‘power through’. This refused the idea of power as a subject that can be possessed and exercised by any party considered ‘powerful’ (Ferguson, 1990). Alternatively, power in this model is a “subjectless” element “consisting of discourse, institutions, actors and a flow of events. These interact invisibly with a logic that is only apparent afterwards, to draw or tie in more and more relations within the ambit of the state” (Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 10). This model, therefore, suggests that systems work through a process of struggle which runs through a system of events and has startingly unexpected outcomes (Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 10).
Empowerment in this model depends on two things, power changes; and power expands, but “always involves forms of dominance and subjection, albeit often accepted and sometimes negotiated” (Jenkins, 2007). In this, empowerment is the aim to find “more spaces of control” via changing attitudes and behaviour to alter power differentials in relationships (Giddens, 1984; Nelson, et al., 1995). Nonetheless, there is no end definition for the concept, as empowerment is a “construct shared by many disciplines and arenas, and how empowerment is understood varies among these perspectives (Page, et al., 1999). Rapport (1984) noted that empowerment is easy to define by its absence but difficult to define in action, as it takes different forms in different contexts (Rapport, 1984).
In this, three attitudes to ‘empower’ can be identified. The first “does not entail necessary conflict and can be promoted in a top-down manner”. The second, however, always involves conflict and ”can only be effective if derived from a bottom-up initiative”. The third attitude requires “understanding the prevalent power relations and how these can – and should – change” (Jenkins, 2007). This understanding of empowerment, however, raises an essential question of “how can empowerment be initiated by those who have ‘power over’ others when “any notion of empowerment being given by one group to another hides an attempt to keep control?” (Rowlands, 1992 p. 52). In this, the potentially bottom-up concept of empowerment can be used to perpetuate and disguise continued top-down attitudes and approaches to gain control (Rowlands, 1992; Nelson, et al., 1995). Thus, this research attempted to analyse power relations within the Syrian context in order to highlight the possibilities for civil society empowerment for a more efficient participation process to take place.
The concept ‘power’ and its analysis has been a topic of debate in social sciences since the 1960s. The debate became further complicated when ‘power’ was associated with ‘participation’ and the concept ‘empowerment’ was introduced. This is due to the idea that ‘participation’ provides ‘power’ to the powerless and enables them to realize their potential (Nelson, et al., 1995). Power is described as “access to resources, control of the elements and processes of production, and rights to dispose of products are experienced in face to face relations” within a wider and systematic economic relations. “How people stand in relation to each other in these systems is described as power”. Therefore, “power is a description of relations, not a ‘thing’ which people have” (Nelson, et al., 1995 pp. 7-8).
Literature introduced three models of power – power to; power over; and power through (Jenkins, 2007; Nelson, et al., 1995). The model ‘power to’ suggests that “power can grow infinitely if you work at it, and growth of one person does not necessarily negatively affect another” (Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 8). Thus, power is a generative and transformative personal attribute which can be developed via capacity and knowledge building within social relations, where people undergo and exercise power (Hartsock, 1990). However, empowerment in this is understood as a “multi-dimensional social process that helps people gain control over their own lives. It is a process that fosters power in people for use in their own lives, their communities and in their society, by acting on issues they define as important” (Page, et al., 1999).
In contrast to the expression of growth used in ‘power to’ model, ‘power over’ involves “gaining access to ‘political’ decision-making, often in public forums” where power is a ‘thing’ of “a finite amount in a closed system”. In this, gaining power would be at the expense of others. (Jenkins, 2007; Nelson, et al., 1995). Power in this was found in observable conflicts where one party dominated the other and made them do “what they would not otherwise have done” (Dahl, 1961; Polsby, 1963; Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 9). Another image to express power in this model was found in invisible conflicts where “one party established barriers which prevented others from voicing their interests, let alone getting them on the agenda” (Bachrach, et al., 1970; Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 9). A third image of power in this model was to give the dominant party interests a “god-given” nature where no alternative to the situation quo was possible (Lukes, 1974; Nelson, et al., 1995). ‘Power over’, therefore, expressed power to be coercive and centred in the governmental institutions. In this, empowerment happens when power is taken from one party to be given to another – i.e. the sum of power is always a “zero sum” (Jenkins, 2007; Nelson, et al., 1995).
The third model of power is ‘power through’. This refused the idea of power as a subject that can be possessed and exercised by any party considered ‘powerful’ (Ferguson, 1990). Alternatively, power in this model is a “subjectless” element “consisting of discourse, institutions, actors and a flow of events. These interact invisibly with a logic that is only apparent afterwards, to draw or tie in more and more relations within the ambit of the state” (Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 10). This model, therefore, suggests that systems work through a process of struggle which runs through a system of events and has startingly unexpected outcomes (Nelson, et al., 1995 p. 10).
Empowerment in this model depends on two things, power changes; and power expands, but “always involves forms of dominance and subjection, albeit often accepted and sometimes negotiated” (Jenkins, 2007). In this, empowerment is the aim to find “more spaces of control” via changing attitudes and behaviour to alter power differentials in relationships (Giddens, 1984; Nelson, et al., 1995). Nonetheless, there is no end definition for the concept, as empowerment is a “construct shared by many disciplines and arenas, and how empowerment is understood varies among these perspectives (Page, et al., 1999). Rapport (1984) noted that empowerment is easy to define by its absence but difficult to define in action, as it takes different forms in different contexts (Rapport, 1984).
In this, three attitudes to ‘empower’ can be identified. The first “does not entail necessary conflict and can be promoted in a top-down manner”. The second, however, always involves conflict and ”can only be effective if derived from a bottom-up initiative”. The third attitude requires “understanding the prevalent power relations and how these can – and should – change” (Jenkins, 2007). This understanding of empowerment, however, raises an essential question of “how can empowerment be initiated by those who have ‘power over’ others when “any notion of empowerment being given by one group to another hides an attempt to keep control?” (Rowlands, 1992 p. 52). In this, the potentially bottom-up concept of empowerment can be used to perpetuate and disguise continued top-down attitudes and approaches to gain control (Rowlands, 1992; Nelson, et al., 1995). Thus, this research attempted to analyse power relations within the Syrian context in order to highlight the possibilities for civil society empowerment for a more efficient participation process to take place.
