2.3 Power
2.3.1 Conceptualising power
Building on the theories of Foucault, Alien (2003) grapples with the way in which power is conceptualised by comparing the previous understanding that power is 'instrumental', i.e. one has power over others, to that of power perceived as 'associational', i.e. the power to act. He affirms that power can be seen as the latent capacity of an actor or agent to influence the actions of others whereby it can be held without being exercised. Similarly Alien (2003) corrects the misconception that power has a specific location. Drawing on the theories of Castells (1996, cited in AlIen, 2003), Alien (2003:11) asserts that the fluid-like quality of power enables it to flow through a network and therefore its presence, if it has one at all, is rather reflected through the "interplay of forces established in place". Power can therefore be seen to exercise actors in the way it either empowers or disempowers them as a result of their place in the network. In the case of the SCH, it is intended that an examination of the positioning of the actors within the specific decision-making network will facilitate an understanding of the broader power relations in the City.
Another limitation in terms of how power is conceptualised, has been the quantifiable capacity which it has been afforded. The power of different parties is always measured as 'more' or 'less', similarly, the capabilities which individuals possess to influence an outcome is also a quantifiable characteristic (Giddens, 1977; 1984, Mann, 1986; 1993 and Hindess, 1996, cited in Alien, 2003). This directly relates to the deterministic nature of power whereby assumptions can be drawn about who 'wins' and who 'loses' (Hindess, 1996, cited in Alien, 2003). However, it is the view of Arendt (1958; 1970, cited in Alien, 2003) and Parsons (1963, cited in Alien, 2003) that power should be viewed as a collective notion, bestowed only by the consent of others and therefore not deterministic in nature.
Isaac (1997, cited in Alien, 2003:23) vIews power as a 'generalised capacity', a uniform substance which lies beneath the surface of the everyday life of agents, suggesting that it is the
"social conditions of existence" which affords agents the power that they possess. In other words, it is the "enduring structure of relations which distribute capacities to some agencies and not others, [a]s the nature of the make-up of groups and organisations change, as the power of institutions waxes and wanes, the task of analysis is to trace their altered social conditions of
existence and to identify the new elements which constitute them" (Alien, 2003 :23). It is therefore this network of social relations which constitutes power and therefore binds and reproduces the actions of various agents (Alien, 2003). It is intended that through an examination of the effects of introducing new consultants and hence altering the configuration of the SCH decision-making team, any potential shifts in power will be revealed.
Previously power has been seen to radiate from a centre, and act as a means to govern from a distance. This has often been referred to as 'reach' whereby governments have "command over space" (Alien, 2003:34). However, in light of recent global restructuring, and the increased number of interests involved, there are "multiple sites of authority" which occupy the landscape and thus, power cannot be exercised in such a straight forward manner (Alien, 2003:35). This is particularly evident in the SCH flagship project where decision-making is underpinned by a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) and is therefore not unilateral. The upshot of this is that this new spatial complexity has called for 'multi-level governance' whereby a multiplicity of spatial scales each emulating the previous 'territorial state' all continue to operate through a series of linear relationships (Alien, 2003).
In terms of these multiple linear relationships, and to return to the misconception that power is perceived as instrumental and held 'over' others, it is a common assumption that power relationships are characteristically asymmetrical. A 'domination - subordination' association between actors is therefore presumed, which Isaac (1987, cited in Alien, 2003) refers to as a 'zero-sum game'. This rests on the assumptions that the system is a closed one, with the interests of the two parties being mutually exclusive (Alien, 2003). It is perhaps difficult to assume otherwise in the instance of an environmentally or socially sensitive development, such as the SCH in Durban, which directly trades the economic objectives off against the others.
2.3.2 Power, social action and public space
This asymmetrical approach to power has been challenged by those theorists who perceIve power as a more enabling force and rather a positive-sum game (Arendt, 1961; 1970, Parsons, 1963 and Giddens, 1979, cited in Alien, 2003). Power is therefore thought to be something that can be mobilised through the collective action of a group of individuals (Alien, 2003).
Furthermore, it can be represented as something that is generated at certain sites within the networks and exchanged without difficulty between such nodes (Mann, 1986 and Castells, 1996, cited in Alien, 2003). Thus, power can be produced 'in and through' social action and is
therefore a medium. The generation of such power is most commonly activated by a "concern with the quality of 'public space' and in particular the moral, ethical and political concerns which raise rather than diminish the civic community" (Alien, 2003:54). These locations can then be viewed as 'sites of power' and 'common action' through which the group becomes empowered to influence the future of the public space (Alien, 2003:54). Since the site for the proposed SCH development is located on a popular beach, it is to be expected that the current users groups will seek to influence the future of the space, and hence the beach as a public space has the capacity to become a 'site of power'. On a broader scale, in response to global environmental issues, 'distanciated networks' form which forge connections between distant locations, and thus represent a form of empowerment through 'social solidarity' (Alien, 2003).
The way in which these issues are communicated across these networks is crucial to the operation of power, as articulated by Benhabib (1993:105, cited in Alien, 2003:56): "[o]nly power is generated by public discourse and is sustained by it".
Similarly, power is a symbolic medium whereby its value is attributed to its "institutionalisation as a social symbol" and in which people attach trust to its value (Parsons, 1963, cited in Alien, 2003:41). Its capacity to influence the outcome of a situation is therefore believed to rest heavily on others "recognising and legitimising its form" (Alien, 2003:41). To link this to Hajer's (1995) theories of discourse which are detailed in Section 2.4, the power of discourse coalitions lie too in their capacity to align the thinking of other actors in the process with their own, hence influencing their words and actions. In summation, this argument has two assertions. Firstly, the variable constituency and fluid nature of power is recognised whereby it has the ability to accumulate in response to collective goals or similarly evaporate when groups disband. Secondly, it allows individuals to intervene in a series of events to influence their own outcome and is therefore a medium used to the advantage of those involved, to pursue common goals i.e. it is "an element of action" (Giddens, 1977:348, cited in Alien, 2003:42). Power therefore facilitates transformation in that it affords the ability to change the course of events.
2.3.3 Power, resourcesand networks
As power is believed to act as an entity which controls events and actions, it is a common misinterpretation that it rests upon the possession of a resource. Rather, power is "generated or actualised through the control and reproduction of different kinds of resources" (Alien, 2003:44). As Alien (2003) highlights, in its simplest term, "power is a means to achieve outcomes" and therefore resources can then be defined as "the media through which power is
exercised" (Giddens, 1979:91, cited in Alien, 2003 :45). Resources therefore provide a form of leverage which allow agents to exercise power, resulting in the compliance of other parties. Itis therefore how these resources are used that determines if and how power is exercised.
Resources can be divided into two categories or 'sets of capabilities'; material or authoritative (Giddens, 1984, cited in Alien, 2003). Material or allocative resources being either "property, land, goods, technology, access to finance and the like", whilst authoritative resources relate to
"the authority or control over the ways in which social life is organised and distributed over space" (Alien, 2003:45). In the case study of the SCH, it can therefore be expected that Moreland as a property developer will have access to finance as well as having the ability to generate significant income for the City and will thus have the ability to exercise power based on these material or allocative resources. Whilst the City as the guardian of public land has control over the management and regeneration of such spaces under its jurisdiction and hence may exercise power based on its authoritative resources. On global terms, the relevance of this to the network society in which we live, is that the exchange of resources through space is most likely in the control of those 'disembedded institutions' which have the ability to link local practices with global social relations, i.e. where local concentrations of resources generate sufficient power to influence those at a distance (Alien, 2003).
To expand on the relationship between power, resources and networks, Mann (1993, cited in Alien, 2003) identifies four types of resources around which such networks stabilise; economic, ideological, political and military. The first three of these are most commonly evident in decision-making processes surrounding development projects. Power therefore emanates from different sites within this overlapping and entwined configuration of networks. As Alien (2003 :60) outlines:
"Different kinds of networks are seen to involve different resources and each network is said to construct its own geography of control, with specific sites on the network producing, switching, directing and co-ordinating resources".
These resources may be "capital, information, technology, people, images, sounds and symbols"
(Alien, 2003 :60). As these resources are all constitutive of power, they reflect the flow of power through the network which is then also subject to "redirection and resistance" (Alien, 2003:61).
An example of this may be the way in which the production and direction of certain information or knowledge (as the resource) in the system redirects power, allowing a different agent to exercise it, to influence the actions of others. This conception of power, although having its
limitations in terms of how networks of power and resources are actually held together, is useful in providing some sort of scalar perception of power.
2.3.4 A 'topological' conception of power
Perhaps the topological perception of power is more appropriate in explaining how power can be conceptualised (Alien, 2003). Because power is inseparable from its effects, it can be viewed as immanent. The techniques of power which may be spatial, organisational, classificatory, representational, ethical or otherwise are therefore relevant as they depict how power functions as a 'normalising force' (AlIen, 2003). This argument is based on the theories of Foucault who maintains that power works through indirect techniques of self-regulation which make it difficult for individuals to 'constitute' themselves in any other way (Foucault, 1982; 1984;
1888a; 1988b; 1988c, cited in Alien, 2003). As a result, the metaphor of a 'molecular soup', illustrates how various unexpected elements interact with one another to produce an unanticipated outcome (Deleuze and Guattari, 1988, cited in Alien, 2003:66). This directly relates to the new mechanisms of governance whereby contemporary policy arenas facilitate a more flexible and ad hoc process, opening up the process to the fate of these relations of power.
The interplay of the actors in the SCH decision-making process and the resultant outcome provides evidence ofthis uncertainty.
On a similar note, when a detailed topology of power relations is required, it is the discursive and spatial messages which remain constant whilst the setting itself is in flux (Alien, 2003).
This diagrammatic representation of power is outlined by Alien (2003:73):
" ... it is the interplay of forces within a particular setting which makes it possible to extrapolate diagrams from the power relations inscribed within particular institutional spaces: subjects are progressively constituted, symbolically and practically through specific points of purchase; mobilised and positioned through particular embedded practices; and channeled and directed by a series of grid-like expectations about how, when and where to conduct themselves and others. In simple terms, different kinds of diagram make different kinds of government and control possible, even though things rarely turn out quite as planned".
This topological representation of power facilitates a deeper understanding of how relations of power may operate within deliberative modes of governance and illustrates how such processes are open to flexible and unpredictable outcomes. Within these arenas, power operates through a number of different modalities.
2.3.5 Modes of power
Before an analysis of the exercise of power is undertaken, it is necessary to outline the modalities of power. Some of the terms such as' domination' and 'authority' have been incorrectly perceived as synonymous with power and therefore require a definition. To quote Weber (1987:94, cited in Alien, 2003:27) dominance is "the will of one party influencing that of the other even against the others reluctance". Dominance will be explored in Section 2.3.6 in more detail in terms of Foucault's theories of self-governance whereby individuals consciously pursue an asymmetrical power relationship.
Whilst authority is 'claimed', relying on the recognition of other parties to comply, and often referred to as 'unquestioning recognition', domination is legitimised (Alien, 2003). Authority can be perceived as instrumental whereby it "is exercised over others in bureaucratic structures through the asymmetrical relationships inscribed in a vertical chain of command" (Alien, 2003: 118). However, Arendt asserts that authority is more than just the bending of wills and rather is an accepted 'wisdom' (Arendt, 1958, cited in Alien, 2003). People who exercise authority are thought to be 'guardians of knowledge' giving advice, however in an age of skepticism, these experts opinions are weighed up rather than accepted (Alien, 2003). With particular reference to this research, the contestation of the different forms of knowledge reflects the different discourses which the groups and individuals ascribe to and therefore also serves to constitute the power relations amongst these groups.
Negotiation is another modality of power, however, less commonly referred to as such. It is believed that through negotiation, parties interact to "fix a collective orientation" and it is therefore more of an associational form of power (Alien, 2003: 124). This can be linked to Hajer's (1995) story-lines which are employed during deliberations as verbal strategies to co-opt others into a specific discourse coalition, and in so doing, entrench the coalition. Habermas (1989, cited in Alien, 2003) states that negotiations are usually directed at reaching agreement over common ends, rather than one group's views over another and co-operation may be maintained for as long as this 'negotiated momentum' is sustained (Alien, 2003). There is thus no obligation to comply, rather the expectation of mutual benefits which forms the basis for this type of power relation. As Hajer's (1995) discourse coalitions are continually negotiated, they may represent this mode of power, however, interactions are not always for the 'collective good' and thus discourse coalition formation may also represent other modes of power.
Persuasion, however, is thought to work though a process of argumentation between equals, whereby all parties are prepared to listen and communicate (Arendt, 1961, cited in Alien, 2003).
By using the example of the Monsanto and biotechnology, Allen (2003) has showed how, authority, negotiation and persuasion are able to work across one another in the formation of coalitions which form around the realisation of collective aims, despite their differing personal backgrounds.
Seduction works on curiosity, and 'encourages desire', allowing the party in question to have a degree of free will and coercion is "the ability to conduct through the threat of negative sanctions" whilst manipulation relies on hiding of the intent (Allen, 2003 :30). Domination, authority, coercion, manipulation and seduction all operate at different levels, embodying different social relations through one strategy or another. However, it is domination and authority that have been central to many theorists' accounts of power and when referring to decision-making processes, they are probably the two modes of power which are most obviously exercised amongst parties. It is the aim of this study to identify which modes of power have dictated the outcomes of the decision-making process of the SCH. To examine the interactions characteristic of a power play which so often characterises such processes, an exploration ofFoucault's 'governance of the self is necessary.
2.3.6 Foucault's 'governance oftheself'
Foucault, the most prominent power theorist, failed to distinguish between the different ways in which power could be exercised although his theories were loosely tied with the notion of domination (Foucault, 1982; 1984, cited in Allen, 2003). Foucault's theories are based on the indirect nature of power whereby through a process of normalisation, power alters the actions of others in a subconscious manner (Alien, 2003). A closing down or limiting of opportunities indicates a degree of 'inducement' which shapes the actions of people by an acceptance of how to act (Allen, 2003). There is thus " ... a degree of willingness to submit to the guidance or injunctions of others and a belief, held by those invoking the norm, in its beneficial outcome - that it is all to the common good" (Allen, 2003:76). Hajer's (1995) discourse analysis infers that dominance of a particular discourse is facilitated through the creation of story-lines and discourse coalitions, which serve to stabilise and fix the discourse. Therefore in any power relationship there exists a dominant figure, of which both sides are aware and thus they enter
into the relationship of their own free will with the expectation of pursuing this accepted norm.
This element of domination is evident in such relationships, as Alien (2003:78) describes:
"In agnostic relationships there is a certain kind of vying for position, a circling of one another as action follows reaction in an effort to influence the outcome of the process - not so much a scripted power play, then, as open-ended games of power within which the element of constraint has been whittled down to a minimum".
Despite these loose ties with dominance, these open-ended games of power rely primarily on the acceptance that the actors are free agents and as reinforced by Weber they are following their own self-interest (Weber, 1987, cited in Alien, 2003). This notion of freedom of self, when applied at a government level, provides governments with the ability to regulate the actions of citizens from a distance (Alien, 2003). This willing subordination permeates society and provides individuals with "a stable presence of ideals, expectations, received 'truths', standards and frameworks" which will guide the way in which they act, effectively "bringing themselves into order" (Alien, 2003 :82). Both the role of and the shift in these "stable presence of ideals"
which preside in the City of Durban will be explored through the decision-making process of the SCH. Similarly, in terms of global organisations, this reach is also maintained as individuals willingly choose to 'fall in line' with their interests, through the restriction of other, usually economic opportunities (Weber, 1978, cited in Alien, 2003). However as power is the relational effect of social interaction and power relations are characterised by an unpredictable outcome, so are government structures open to unexpected consequences. Alien (2003:84) affirms that:
" as somewhat precarious combinations of social activity, the basic institutions of government are themselves said to be caught up in the intense flow of social interaction, open to mutation in quite unexpected ways, yet constantly striving to hold things down, to regularize zones of activity".
The South African environmental legislative arena often permits this degree of uncertainty and flexibility which at the same time is held in check by certain parties who endeavor to operate by standard procedures most proximate to the norm (Scott and Oelofse, 2005). So whilst power may induce specific behaviour in individuals operating within a policy arena, the outcome will nevertheless be the result of an 'open-ended' game. This has implications for decision-making frameworks whereby there should be an acceptance of this element of flexibility and a move away from assumedly stable, rigid processes.