Theories of power and social change. Power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a meta-theoretical framework for studying power in processes of change and innovation. Power is one of the most contested concepts in social and political theory. This paper discusses seven prevailing points of contestation: Power over versus power to, centred versus diffused, consensual versus conflictual, constraining versus enabling, quantity versus quality, empowerment versus disempowerment and power in relation to knowledge. The paper reviews how different scholars have dealt with abovementioned points of contestation and identifies how different theories of power can be translated into specific empirical questions to systematically explore power in processes of social change and innovation.

KEYWORDS:

• Power
• social change
• sustainability transitions
• social innovation

Author biography

Flor Avelino works as a researcher and lecturer on in the politics of sustainability transitions and social innovation at the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT) at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam. She specialises in the role of power and empowerment in processes of social change and has a particular empirical and personal interest in translocal networks and social movements that strive towards more just and sustainable communities and societies.

Acknowledgments

This article is based on research carried out as part of the Transformative Social Innovation Theory (“TRANSIT”) project which was funded by the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) under grant agreement 613169. The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. A typical example of a ‘family resemblance concept’ is the word ‘game’: its meaning inherently depends on the context in which it is used. The ‘playfulness’ of a card game played at home starkly contradicts with the ‘seriousness’ of a political game. All possible meanings of the word ‘game’ partly overlap and partly contradict each other, hence making it impossible to agree on one all-encompassing definition.

2. Although Foucault is often criticized for his ‘death of the subject’, Haugaard claims that this is contestable (Haugaard 2002: 209). Interpreting what Foucault meant by power can be considered a separate debate in itself, as authors frequently accuse each other of either misunderstanding or neglecting parts of Foucault’s work (e.g. Aladjam 1995, Borch 2005, Garcia 2001, Heiskala 2001, Infinitio 2003, Thompson 2003). This is further complicated by the fact that there is quite some difference and even contradiction between the ‘early Foucault’ and the ‘later Foucault’, and because at least one of the ‘Foucaults’ has explicitly emphasized that he does not aim to present a theory nor a model of power, but rather a ‘toolbox’ for studying power.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Flor Avelino

Flor Avelino works at the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT) as senior researcher and lecturer in the politics of sustainability transitions and social innovation, and as associate professor at the Department of Public Administration & Sociology (DPAS) at the Erasmus School of Social & Behavioural Sciences (ESSB, Erasmus University of Rotterdam). With a background in political science, she specialises in power theories and has a particular interest in understanding how people and networks are (dis)empowered to contribute to change and how power relations are being challenged and reproduced through translocal processes of social innovation and sustainability transitions.