Culture and power
introduction
Both culture and power are essential topics in our society today. Culture, according to Mannheim (2012), refers to people’s way of life, which is used to express a variety of values and meanings not only in learning or art but also in their ordinary and institutional behaviours. Power, on the other hand, is defined by Alexander, J., Bartmanski, and Giesen (2012) as a person’s relative capacity to change other people’s states by either withholding or providing resources or even administering a form of punishment. The two concepts are instrumental and central to people’s lives. With power been playing a pivotal role in achieving goals that are culturally nurtured, culture is a crucial indicator of fostering normative standards when a person is using legitimate power. However, the cultural frameworks hold little information on how different cultures nurture views regarding the purpose and meaning of power. They have, instead, put more emphasis on the cultural patterns associated with the unequal distribution of power in our society.
The notion of power and culture has been documented in various pieces of literature as the determinant of many patterns of behaviour in our society today. In his seminal work, and through the use of participant observation research method, Stanfield (2016) focused on the cultural backgrounds and how it plays a part in power division among influential members of an institution or organization. According to his research, power is unequally distributed due to cultural strings attached to people in society. However, these power differences are characterized by the national cultures and social systems, rather than people themselves, an aspect that index shared cultural acceptance of social hierarchy, especially when it comes to job contexts. According to Denner et al. (2019), there is no direct address of either individual differences or cultural differences in concepts of power or its nature. The differences in power are, therefore, referenced when explaining various behaviours depicted by those in powerful positions, especially those who have little concern regarding other people’s welfare—for example, sexual harassment or negative attitude towards collective violence. The main advantage of this method of research is that the researcher was able to observe behaviours from people’s natural settings, which ensures there is no penetration of insights from the outside environment and increasing the levels of accuracy. However, it’s impossible for the researcher to directly observe some aspects or occurrences which might be useful or crucial for the research.
Moreover, another recent study by Jones (2017), and through the use of interview research method, suggests that power holders are attentive and benevolent to the cultural backgrounds, showing concern or interest to others they are attending to. After interviewing people in leadership positions, Jones concludes that, when power is primed, people with an exchange or communal relationships behave differently with their leaders. Therefore, it is a culture that dictates how leaders associate with their subordinates. With those disposed to have mutual connections with cultural backgrounds expected to be close to those who are ruled. However, the results of this study reveal that power values are individualized and guided based on personal values specific to the leader and determined by the cultural values surrounding that particular leadership position. The main advantage of using this research method was that the researcher was able to collect more data in a short period and in a more straightforward way. The technique was also cheap to use compared to other research methods. However, the accuracy of the information provided by the interviewee in this research was not always guaranteed. Some people might answer just for the sake, and without regarding the truth of the matter, the researcher is looking for.
Culture also influences people’s beliefs about the exercise of power. According to Swartz (2012), while using a questionnaire research method, the author identified differences in how people endorsed their views on power. According to the research, there are two distinct types of beliefs about power: personalized power beliefs and social power believe. The researcher employed a multicultural sample which was also controlled for membership by the cultural groups. The inclusion of groups such as Hispanics, Europeans, and Asians, which is also popularly known for their communal relationships, made the research more significant to explore their relationships with power. The results of this study indicated a significant difference in the way different groups perceive power, which was also determined by the cultural differences the sample group exhibited. If a particular group is associated with certain beliefs in their culture about power, then they will be socialized to view those in positions of power using a specific angle, which directly correlates to the cultural orientation they have. Besides, individuals oriented by their cultures on how to view power tended to help each other to understand the different meanings of power in their culture. The main advantage of using the questionnaire research method was that the researcher was able to collect massive amounts of data at the same time and even from different places. The questionnaires were also more comfortable to translate to fit the language well understood by the participants. However, the accuracy of the results is not always a guarantee of this kind of research. Some people might choose to answer questions without necessarily giving truthful information.
Similarly, cultural orientations can result in exploitative use of power. The goal of some cultures can orient people to use power to exploit other people in society. In Davis’s (2013) study uncovering the associations between various tendencies of exploitation and the cultural orientation, the researcher used mixed research methods to explore the role played by culture when high powered leaders engage in exploitative behaviours. The participants, who were mainly real-estate developers, been involved in negotiations with various people from the subordinate positions. In the results, it was evident culture influenced both beliefs and attitudes about the meaningful and desirable behaviours which guided the person on the actions they’d take. Since power is vital when one desires to achieve culturally desired goals, leaders should foster cultural standards that are legitimate for their use. In the study results also, there was a relative association between culturally oriented leaders with acts of benevolence. While leaders without any cultural orientation used their power to exploit their subordinates as well as those lowly privileged. The research is instrumental in linking the gap between those in powerful positions and the aides by nurturing cultural values for the powerful leaders. The main advantage of using this research method is that the researcher was able to cover a more comprehensive sample with ease. However, using this method also proves expensive to the researcher.
Further, evidence from various sources has also indicated patterned attainment of power through the use of cultural backgrounds. While investigating a small group of participants from East Asia and with strong cultural background, Goldfarb (2012) reveals a broader array of outcomes proving that culture is an essential guide on how different patterns of power are viewed. With a similar view from the other studies, Goldfarb examines an ongoing concern promoting the attainment of power through the use of cultural backgrounds. While power is personalized, different cultures develop their leaders to attain power. With beliefs that their cultures are well oriented and socialized to climb to powerful positions. Through the use of an experimental research method, the researcher expressed their desire to participate in situations where they can influence other people. The experimental research method used by the researcher during this study process ensured the researcher got accurate information from the participants. However, this method of research is also expensive compared to other methods of analysis.
In summary, different cultures are used in nurturing different views of the correct and desirable behaviours associated with power. The findings from across various researches show that people’s behaviour of either benevolent or self-centeredness is the conceptualization of power and the different elements of culture. Culture can e associated with varying instruments of power, which also determine how people behave while in powerful positions. As shown in the different research analyzed, culture defines the variations in the bases of power. Generally, power is directly associated with the culture in that culture determines power orientation. Therefore, different people in power are likely to display unusual behaviour patterns due to their cultural adjustments.
References
Alexander, J., Bartmanski, D. and Giesen, B. eds. (2012). Iconic power: materiality and meaning in social life. Springer.
Davis, L.J. (2013). Introduction: Normality, power, and culture. The disability studies reader, 4, pp.1-14.
Denner, J., Bean, S., Campe, S., Martinez, J. and Torres, D. (2019). Negotiating Trust, Power, and Culture in a Research–Practice Partnership. AERA Open, 5(2), p.2332858419858635.
Goldfarb, J.C. (2012). Reinventing political culture: the power of culture versus the culture of power. Polity.
Jones, A.T. (2017). The bishop reformed: studies of episcopal power and culture in the central Middle Ages. Routledge.
Mannheim, K. (2012). Essays on the Sociology of Culture. Routledge.
Stanfield, J.R. (2016). Economics, power and culture: essays in the development of radical institutionalism. Springer.
Swartz, D. (2012). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. University of Chicago Press.