2.3 Psychological Interpretations of Power
2.3.3 Process Oriented Psychology
In the survey of the recent literature there are few studies which have examined personal power empirically or as a dedicated study, particularly within an organisational context. Current scholars who examine the psychological effects of power have linked it to the characteristics of positive psychology in that it leads to a more positive sense of efficacy; a more assertive approach to the world; a higher self-esteem and improved physical health and longevity (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo & Ickovics 2000; Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson 2003; Marmot 2004). With this resurgence of interest in the study of power and the commonly held assumption that the subjective sense of power influences thought, feeling and action directly, Anderson et al. (2012) claim that it is critical that it becomes an area of rigorous research. Drawing from the humanistic tradition of psychology, a field of psychology known as Process Oriented Psychology was developed by Arnold Mindell in the 1980’s which incorporates an explicit model of
42
power into both its theory and practice (Mindell 1995; Mindell 2008). Over the years Mindell’s work has focussed on and developed in the area of practice through the Process Work Institute and its members, including his wife Amy Mindell, building on the foundations of his academic school of theory.
Process work is distinct from most forms of psychology in that it has a fluid format, emphasising awareness and following the process of individuals or groups, rather than trying to achieve a specific state or desired behaviour (Mindell 2008; Schuitevoerder 2000). In working with groups, process oriented psychology is similar to the practice of Gestalt (Van Tonder 2008) which recognises the spontaneous ways in which people organise themselves and the various roles within groups. Some of these roles may include authority figures, oppressors and the oppressed which are not static, but forever changing, evolving and transforming (Mindell 1995; Mindell 2008). Essential to the work is an understanding of power relations in a group.
It has been established that determining the power a person has depends on a complex interplay of psychological and social factors. Process work follows the manifestation and dissipation of power similar to the way in which Foucault (1982) was more interested in addressing power through its effect, rather than trying to create a different form of power (Schuitevoerder 2000). Due to the broad nature of power, it is both objective and subjective and can be experienced totally differently by those who have it and those who are subjected to it. Anderson et al.’s (2012) study of personal power clarifies the claim that a personal sense of power is organised within specific relationships and group contexts. Anderson, Spataro and Flynn (2008) acknowledge that personal attributes that lead to power differ across social contexts. The process work model of power is a useful one in understanding women and their perceptions of power since it recognises the contextual nature of power as a relationship specific construct, it accommodates the subjective experience of those who have not had power traditionally and acknowledges the dynamic shifts of power in relationship. The dimensions of this model, namely social, psychological and spiritual power, have therefore provided a framework for the understanding of personal power in this research study.
43
2.3.3.1 Process Oriented Psychology Power Model
In order to understand power more deeply, Arnold Mindell (1995) developed a model to explore the privileges or ‘rank’ that lay claim to power. This model has become a seminal theory in the application of process oriented psychology to group facilitation (Mindell 2008). It provides the framework for process oriented facilitators to transform group interactions into democratic dialogue which promotes awareness and openness to people at any level of interaction (Mindell 2008). The theoretical and practical application of process work is not intended to eliminate rank since these are societal norms which form the basis of spontaneous and institutionalised social organisation.
However the training of process oriented facilitators is aimed at developing an awareness of rank and using it consciously for the benefit of others (Newton 2013;
Mindell 2008)
The privileges Mindell highlighted in this model are held in relation to one another and carry rank that he defined as “the sum of a person’s privilege” (Mindell 1995: 28). He viewed this rank as “conscious or unconscious, social or personal ability, arising from culture, community support, personal or psychological or spiritual power” (Mindell 1995: 42). Depending on your position relative to others you might have higher or lower rank on an attribute. Rank is not always earned but may be a product of inheritance and the value bestowed on a privilege by our culture or community. If rank is prevalent in one area, individuals tend to rely on that and not develop it into other areas (Schuitevoerder 2000). In exploring the intellectual map of group processes, Fiske (2012) claims that holding rank makes people alert to and effective in achieving their own goals and prone to objectifying and stereotyping others. Individuals internalise rank as they develop relationships with those around them, from childhood throughout their life, and these become the the rules of social engagement (Collett 2007). The various forms of rank and their interplay create a complex matrix. In order to understand rank more deeply, Mindell (1995) differentiated rank into three categories, namely social, psychological and spiritual.
44 a) Social Rank
This form of rank is the ranking bestowed by the culture and society we live in. It embraces the value system as well as the biases and prejudices of the mainstream society and bestows more privileges to some and less to others (Mindell 1995). In western societies these privileges include aspects such as race, gender, education, income, class and age (Mindell 2008; Schuitevoerder 2000). According to Fiske (2012), social status affects respect and includes envy and admiration upward, but also contempt and pity downward (Fiske 2012). The envy up can be vengeful or aspirant, just as contempt and pity are, respectively, negative or positive forms of scorn directed downward. The way in which personal power is subjectively perceived by both the holder of rank, as well as those in relationship with them is a complex area of study and poorly understood (Anderson et al. 2012). What is evident from Mindell’s model and more recent studies on personal power is that the way in which power is conceptualised is both context specific, relationally dependent and evokes strong emotions (Fiske 2012).
b) Psychological Rank
Psychological rank occurs when you have developed internal resources and abilities so that you have greater personal comfort and ease in addressing challenging situations.
This is a similar concept to those expressed in the field of positive psychology, such as resilience and self-actualisation (Aspinwall & Staudinger 2003; Strümpfer 2005). The development of these resources might arise from personal psychological work where a greater familiarity with self occurs or with difficult life challenges (Mindell 2008).
Psychological rank might also arise out of learning skills to deal with having lower social rank and managing the world in this condition (Schuitevoerder 2000) Since the gendered social structure guides men’s and women’s experiences (Fiske 2012), this is the reason why women may have a tendency to develop this form of power more naturally than men, given their social ‘rank’ in relation to men in patriarchal societies.
A potential abuse of psychological rank is manipulation (Schuitevoerder 2001).
Manipulation is defined as“deliberately influencing or controlling the behaviour of others to one’s own advantage by using charm, persuasion, seduction, deceit, guilt induction, provocation or coercion” (Mandal & Kocur 2013). This relies on significantly sophisticated psychological skills but with detrimental effect and is often
45
negatively associated with a female stereotype (Sandberg 2013; Valerio 2009; Wilson 2004). The manipulative application of psychological rank assumes an asymmetrical power struggle, where competition exists resulting from dependence and potential exploitation of each party (Fiske 2012). The corollary to the competitive power struggle which manifests through psychological rank, is the more symmetrical co-operative model where power is perceived as mutual and psychological skills are directed towards collaboration (Fiske 2012). This recognises the interdependent nature of healthy psychological functioning and is an area which is gaining attention in research but remains largely under-researched, as discussed in the section on positive psychology (Lewis 2011).
c) Spiritual Rank
Goltz’ (2011) claim that models of social power have typically excluded spirituality as a source of power fails to recognise the contribution of Mindell’s (1995) power model to individual and organisational social-psychological processes. What Goltz (2011) accurately claims is that by failing to acknowledge spiritual power, models of power miss an important dynamic in organisations. Mindell’s (1995: 62) definition of spiritual rank is that it “comes from a relationship to something divine or transcendent”. It can occur naturally, through personal or spiritual training, or may arise as a result of having lesser social and psychological rank. It does not necessarily arise from religious practice or training, but rather from a connection to a divine or transcendental state which creates a detachment and experience of freedom outside of the events of ordinary life (Schuitevoerder 2000). Spiritual rank is also described in some of the literature as identifying with a greater purpose or significance over and above the mundane issues of every-day life (Anderson & Shafer 2005; Nicholson 2012). Anderson & Shafer (2005) describe this as the alignment of behaviour with the soul and deeper value systems. This is similar to Goltz’s (2011) description of spiritual power discussed in the previous section (2.3.2.1) of this chapter. The instrumental use of spiritual power to control others is at complete odds with the proposed concept of spiritual power and represents an abuse of power (Goltz 2011; Gross 2010; Mindell 1995; Schuitevoerder 2000). In fact Goltz claims that spiritual power holders will exhibit a decreased use of intentional power as their spiritual power increases (Goltz 2011).
46
In using this model of power, process work is interested not only in individual work but also in the development of groups, cultures and societies. In this way it is a theory as well as a practice that traverses both western and eastern cultures as well as the fields of individual and group psychology and transformation of society. In their practice of working with international groups, such as the United Nations, process oriented psychologists have tried to deal with issues of global conflict in the world based on an awareness of power dimensions and applying a process approach to diversity (Mindell 1995; Mindell 2008; Schuitevoerder 2000). This is another reason why the process model of power lends itself to current studies of women’s issues in its philosophical underpinnings of deep democracy (Mindell 2008; Newton 2013). The model recognises the assumptions and perceptions that are held by the majority as a way of constructing a consensual reality, as well as an emerging reality which is less accessible and often indicated in the more subtle communication processes of individuals and groups
(Mindell 2008). It is intended to be a transformative model, nurturing both external and inner relationship with the multitude of identities which make up individuals, thereby cultivating a form of deep democracy within one’s own psyche (Newton 2013). The concept of multiple identities will be discussed further in the Chapter 3 on the feminist discourse of power. Process oriented psychology and process work is an established and growing field of practice which enables facilitators to work with power dynamics within an organisational context and is therefore also an appropriate and applied model for this research study. The study of power within an organisational context is the next focus area of this chapter.