1 Linking participation with powerConcepts and methods of ‘participation’ are usedincreasingly throughout the world in shaping policyand in delivering services. At the Institute ofDevelopment Studies (IDS) we are finding that theseparticipatory approaches throw new light on thecomplex interactions within and between society andstate institutions at local, national and global levels.Participatory approaches lead to questions abouthow different kinds of knowledge and values shapethe rules of the game and policy choices. What arethe societal and political processes through whichpower operates that inform whose voice is heardand whose is excluded? This then leads to askingwhat is power? Is it just about someone makingother people act against their best interests? Or, is italso the glue that keeps society together? What arethe connections between power and social change?

To make explicit that these are the questions at thecore of our research and teaching interests, theParticipation Group at IDS has recently changed itsname to ‘Participation, Power and Social Change’.And, in keeping with that name change, this issue ofthe IDS Bulletin aims to present some of our currentwork on the practice of power in development and onthe entry points for change. Much of this work hasbeen supported by a programme of action researchand capacity building funded between 2003–6 by theDepartment for International Development (DFID),the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida)and the Swiss Agency for Development andCooperation (SDC), and the contributions explicitly orotherwise reflect our dialogue with colleagues inthese agencies as well as more broadly with our manypartners in civil society and research institutes,primarily in the South, but also in the North.

Our proposal to our donors in 2003 argued thatdespite some positive changes at the global level –growing social initiatives and civil experiments, the

recent explosion of processes of democratisation,and increasing openness by governments and theprivate sector to being held accountable – globaleconomic and political factors are entrenchingpoverty and inequality and reducing the agency ofcitizens to influence the processes that affect theirlives. We suggested that this is partly because peopleliving in poverty are cut off from real avenues ofpower and argued that the realisation of people’srights will depend in part on forging links ofsolidarity between people and organisations atdifferent levels so that they can better understandthe dynamics of power between citizens andgovernment, and within global and nationalinstitutions – with a view to changing them.

Thus, over the last few years, our work onparticipation has focused on the perspectives of thosewho are living in poverty and struggling to claim theirrights and on the organisations who claim to besupporting these struggles. Concerning the first, wehave been exploring issues of power from theperspective of those who are grappling to understandwhat is happening to them in their own lives. In thisIDS Bulletin, Colette Harris’ article on power andgender relations in Mali and Joy Moncrieffe’s onchildren in Haiti are examples of such work andinclude an exploration of the possibilities forempowerment by those they are writing about. At amore general level, John Gaventa and AndreaCornwall’s article on participation, knowledge andpower looks at how such research can contribute topopular awareness-raising and political mobilisation.They also consider the challenges to participatoryaction research (PAR) when seeking to bring therealities of poor people’s lives, as they understandthem, to the notice of those organisations whichclaim to be working on behalf of these people.

A better understanding of the operations of powerfor those struggling to realise their rights is equally

Introduction: Exploring Power for Change

Rosalind Eyben, Colette Harris and Jethro Pettit*

IDS Bulletin Volume 37 Number 6 November 2006 © Institute of Development Studies

1

important for those organisations with a globalreach and which have the capacity to affect the livesof many – for good or for ill. However, progressivechange that leads to greater equity and social justiceis often subject to contestation. People living inpoverty may have diverse political agendas, whilethose who are wealthy will act to defend theirinterests. Official aid agencies as well as internationalnon-governmental organisations (NGOs) are gainingan enhanced appreciation of politics and nationalcontext, but if they work without any clearconceptual understanding of how power may workin development practice and within their ownoperations, they may be unknowingly perpetuatingthe inequity and injustice they are striving to change.Cathy Shutt and Rosalind Eyben explore these issuesfrom the perspective of their own erstwhilepositions from within the international aid system.

As we go on to discuss, power can be conceptualisedin many different ways giving rise to different sets ofdebates (Mosse 2005). For some, ‘power’ is normallyassociated with the state and formal politicalinstitutions. DFID, for example, is currently invitingexpressions of interest in relation to a new researchprogramme on ‘Power, Politics and the State’ inwhich the issues are framed in terms of ‘elites,elections, parliaments, political stakeholders, rule oflaw, etc.’ (DFID 2006). In contrast, the focus of thisIDS Bulletin is more on informal power that isdispersed throughout society and operates in allrelationships and how that shapes and is shaped bypolitical and other social institutions. For example,both Hunter and Harris look at power and genderrelations within families; Taylor and Boser explorepower within institutions of higher education;Navarro within a social movement and both Eybenand Shutt within international aid.

The DFID research programme just mentionedunderstands the debate about power as a questionof how ‘countries and their governments balancethe short term needs for responsiveness against thelonger term requirements of a transformativeagenda, and how the interplay of political andinstitutional forces influences the choice of routes todevelopment’ (DFID 2006). In this IDS Bulletin,however, contributors’ interest in the wideroperations of power highlights other tensions. Oneof these, debated with the Participation Team’sinternational advisory group at a meeting in 2004,concerns the significance of personal transformation

for changing power relations within the widersociety. Another relates to whether power can beharnessed to secure win–win outcomes without anylosers, in a process of securing greater equity andsocial justice or whether power relations changebecause of contestation and challenge to the existingorder. Later in this introduction, we discuss howthese debates are couched in the contributions tothis IDS Bulletin.

Thus this IDS Bulletin reflects the different ways wehave been working with and studying the diversesets of development actors and relations mentionedin the preceding paragraphs. Starting with thepremise that there is nothing as practical as goodtheory, our experience with participatory approachesto development has led to some preliminaryexplorations of power in development relationships.In so doing, we recognise that there are many waysin which we can understand power. Depending onactors, the issue and the historical context, differentconcepts of power may be more or less helpful inilluminating entry points for change. Bearing this inmind, what have we learnt so far?

2 Conceptualising powerRobert Chambers in this IDS Bulletin notes thatpower is a useful word because it has acommonsense, rather than a difficult academicmeaning. Nevertheless, power is a contentious,sometimes even threatening word in the world ofdevelopment research and practice. It is contentiousbecause, as a concept, we can understand it in manydifferent ways and debates about meanings mayremain fruitless should they stay at a theoretical level.It is also contentious because these differentunderstandings are themselves shaped by power.When presented in a way that would appear tochallenge people’s perceptions of the way the worldis, or the way they think it should be, talking aboutpower may be threatening. For example, we havefound that in some bilateral aid organisations, theword may trigger alarm, particularly when goingbeyond the analysis of formal political institutions toexploring informal power that is dispersedthroughout society and operates in all relationships.Thus, power may resist its naming. Conversely, forthose who evoke it, that same action of namingpower may be empowering.

Power can be thought of as capacity – an ideaoriginating with Weber – and as such can be

Eyben, Harris and Pettit Introduction: Exploring Power for Change2

understood as both enabling social change andsustaining the status quo (Hindess 1996). From thisperspective, the idea that power drives thedevelopment process is not new. Yet the naming andanalysis of power – as fundamental in the multiplesets of relationships that shape development practice– is still relatively recent. Still being explored iswhether and how conceptual and appliedunderstandings of the operations of power can helpdevelopment actors (including governments, civilsociety and grassroots organisations, research andteaching institutes and international developmentagencies) in their efforts to reduce global povertyand make progress towards social justice. This IDSBulletin aims to contribute to such an exploration,also bearing in mind the mission and vision of theIDS that includes:

a concern for equity and social justice as well asfor poverty reductionan explicit recognition of the power relations thatshape development processesa vision of a world in which citizens have greaterpower to influence the state and privateinstitutions to work in ways that acceleratepoverty reduction and promote social justice.(IDS Annual Report 2004–05)

As will become apparent when reading the articles,the contributors – nearly all members of theParticipation, Power and Social Change Team – applydifferent understandings of power. This diversity ispartially explained by our various personal histories,ideological positions and disciplinary backgrounds.However, it also derives from our recognising theutility of different conceptual approaches forexploring and explaining diverse contexts as well asengaging with differently positioned developmentactors. Most of us in the team do not work on thepremise that there is a one-size-fits-all theory ofpower for achieving social change. Nevertheless, inhis article, Zander Navarro is perhaps more explicitlyattached to the possibility of a ‘meta-theory thatallows us to understand power structures and powerrelations in any given context’ – although he extolsthe subject of his article, the French sociologistBourdieu, for not claiming to offer an overall theoryof social change. At the same time, the explanatorypower of Bourdieu is evident in this IDS Bulletin, notonly in Navarro’s article where he exploresBourdieu’s theory in relation to the landlessmovement in Brazil but also in the articles by Taylor

and Boser, Moncrieffe, and Eyben. Navarro arguesthat social activists would profit from a serious studyof social theory and cautions against anoversimplistic use of toolkits and frameworks tosupport action for social change.

On the other hand, developing and critiquingtheories of power has also been judged by some (butnot all) of our civil society partners in the South asrunning the risk of becoming too theoretical. Anindependent evaluation of our work earlier this yearwondered whether the challenge was one of howto balance the pressure for academic publicationsrequired by UK research assessments, with the needsof Southern stakeholders (and some Northern ones)for less academic and more practical, hands-onguides to development practice. But that sameevaluation encouraged us by recommending that thetheoretical underpinnings of our work on powerneed to be made clearer and the practicalapplications better demonstrated.1 The Gaventaframework – the ‘power cube’ has been deliberatelydesigned to be accessible as an analytical tool forpractitioners as well as researchers. As such, it hasbeen well received, both by civil society activists anddonor agencies, including DFID and the SDC.

We doubt that we are much driven by the pressurefor academic publications but do recognise animportant and necessary tension in the team’sresearch between on the one hand, engagingthrough action research and learning with thosestruggling for their rights – simplifying theory as atool for thinking with – and, on the other hand,developing and critiquing theory as a means forgreater understanding of how power operates. Webelieve we need to do both and hope that this IDSBulletin reflects this dual purpose. In his secondarticle, written with Cornwall, Gaventa specificallyexplores some of the quandaries relating to the roleof knowledge in supporting social change.

Despite different approaches on this matter oftheory and frameworks, the contributors also sharemuch in common. First of all, is a commitment topraxis – the notion of empowered individuals andgroups engaging with and applying theory as a toolto help shape the kind of world they want forthemselves and for future generations of society.Related to this is a concern for reflective research,teaching and action. This means enquiring criticallyinto how we learn about the world and reflecting

IDS Bulletin Volume 37 Number 6 November 2006 3

on how power shapes our modes of being, learningand action. Critical reflection – becoming knowinglyconscious of ourselves – provides the means forinterrogating prevailing interpretations of our socialworld and ways of behaving within it by asking ‘Canit not be otherwise?’.

Experiential learning and reflective practicepotentially challenge the social consensus of ‘this isthe way things are done around here’ and severalcontributions explore power as created by tacitknowledge that is acquired and reinforced throughdisciplinary practices. Yet even when we becomeconscious that this is happening, we may decide tonot to contest such norms because on balance wesee them as being in our best interests. This is wherethe notion of consensual power comes from(Haugaard 2003). Arendt’s notion of ‘authority’relates to this, with examples from Plato of – amongother relationships – that between the physician andthe patient (Arendt 2003).

Conversely, some contributors see the exposure ofpower as a step towards challenging power. Here,power is understood as ‘power over’ created by thesocial order, backed up by the threat of coercion – oreven in the case of Hunter’s article, the actual use ofviolence through which men individually andcollectively uphold their dominant position. In thelight of such a conceptual approach, responses topower may be either to let those dominating havetheir way because of lack of critical consciousness(the power is internalised), or to be aware of what ishappening and choose not to resist (as noted above),or to be aware and choose to resist – eithersubversively or openly depending on thecircumstances and opportunity. Strategic questionsthen arise about the particular processes orinterventions (e.g. legislation, emancipatory forms ofeducation, development of critical self-awarenessand self-esteem, advocacy, social mobilisation, etc.),which can be effective in revealing and challengingpower in its less visible and more embedded forms.

Lastly, another view of power, important to many ofthe contributors, is that of power as capability – andthus power as potentially infinitely expanding. Theview here is that through deliberative dialogue andother participatory modalities a greater number ofpeople including those who historically had less voicemay join the debate and secure an agreement thatthings could be done differently, amplifying our

imagination of what is possible. Assumptionsconcerning the potential for power to expand insuch a manner must however take into account therole of discourse. If people’s understanding of what ispossible is shaped by the historical and culturalcontext of which they are part, it is very difficult toconceive social relations differently even when newspaces for deliberation are opened up.

The rest of this introduction discusses how thesethemes and views on power are explored anddebated in this IDS Bulletin. First, we look at how thecontributors approach reflective practice, includinghow they explain to themselves and their readerswhy it is they are interested in power. We then turnto a discussion of consensual power, followed bythinking about power as challenged or contested,associated with efforts to shift power relations.Whereas both of these latter two approaches maybe understood as seeing power as a finite resource,in contrast, when associated with ideas ofparticipatory, inclusive democracy, power may not beseen as a finite resource with politics determining itsdistribution. Instead, power may be seen assomething each one of us possesses – a powerwithin that may be liberated and therefore relativelyinfinite. We discuss this approach under the rubric ofexpanding power. For the last theme, we return tothe idea of reflective practice but look more deeplyat how forms of critical reflexive learning maycontribute to transforming power in social relations.We conclude by posing some questions for ourselves.What are the implications of these various ways ofexploring power for our future work and for the IDSmission and vision?

3 Experiencing and reflecting on power‘Reflexivity’ is a word that appears fairly frequently inthe work of the Participation team, as well as in thisIDS Bulletin. Navarro refers to the importance ofsociology being a reflexive discipline, meaning thatsocial theorists should enquire as to how society andculture shape their modes of inquiry and ways ofknowing about that society and culture into whichwe are inquiring. Thus we need to be alert as to howthe politics of culture determines the extent of ourimagination and hence our observation. Similarly,Eyben argues that if those involved in aid relationshipswere more familiar with gift theory they might bebetter equipped to understand how power is workingin that relationship and learn to better manage theshadow side of the gift. Likewise, Taylor and Boser

Eyben, Harris and Pettit Introduction: Exploring Power for Change4

reflect on how the operations of power in institutesof higher education can neutralise or undermine thehoped for transformation in students’ understandingand practice that participatory pedagogy aspires for inthe classroom. Here they make a case for reflexivitybased on a consideration of how institutes of highereducation, such as IDS, are shaped by the widerglobal society of which we are part and to which wealso contribute.

This academic reflexivity is taken further by Taylor andBoser and other contributors interested in how theyhave experienced power in their personal andprofessional lives. For some, it has indeed been thesedirect experiences of power that have contributed toshaping the contributors’ intellectual and politicalapproach to the subject. Gaventa’s early experiencesof what, in conversation with the editors, he hasreferred to as ‘hard’ power, has shaped his strongcommitment to both understanding and challenginga power that results in intimidation and injustice. Byrecalling, articulating and acknowledging theirexperiences, not only intellectually, but as JethroPettit emphasises, through experiential andemotional recollection, others, such as Shutt andEyben have sought to reflect critically on their ownpower, looking back on and questioning their ownpast behaviour. As Shutt comments, while this kindof reflection might seem a kind of vanity, it proves tobe painful.

Feminist perspectives have influenced this reflexiveapproach to power, appearing most strongly inPettit’s article where he examines not only who he isand how this shapes his understanding but the roleof power in shaping how he is at different moments.Identity shifts affect one’s understanding of power,as Eyben describes the physical sensations she feltwhen she found herself sitting at the other side ofthe table, no longer an official donor but part of asmall civil society organisation asking for funds.However, acknowledging one’s own position andseeking to adapt one’s behaviour to diminish powerdifferences can only take one so far, as Colette Harrisdiscusses in her article on working within a Malianrural community.

Reflexivity is associated with the idea of critical ordiscursive consciousness – that ability to step out ofyour identity and interrogate how that identity shapesyour understanding of what is possible, in otherwords what is power. As we discuss in the final

section to this introduction, it is such a consciousnessthat offers the possibility of transforming socialrelationships through one’s own changed behaviour,for example Rosa Parks, a leader of the Americanblack civil rights movement who refused to give upher seat to a white passenger. What Haugaard (1997),one of the best modern writers on power, describesas an infelicitous action (one that society would judgeas either mad or bad) became felicitous as a result ofthe widespread prior mobilisation and protests takingplace that gave Parks the courage to make hergesture (Lovell 2003). Yet, such consciousness thatthe world could be otherwise does not always lead tochanging behaviour and people may consent to thepower of the existing social order even if they think itunjust. In an unpublished paper, Tony Klouda (2004) ofCare International queries whether most people areprepared to go through such a process of changingtheir understanding of how they view the world andtheir position in it because of the risk to theirlivelihoods and their sense of belonging and positionin society.

4 Consenting to powerDo people consent to power because they areaware of their situation and feel they have nochoice? Or are they socialised not to challengepower? Joy Moncrieffe explores this question withreference to Haitian society and concludes that whilesome victims of class and racial discrimination acceptand internalise the stigma power imposes uponthem – what Gaventa refers to as ‘invisible power’ –others still have and exercise their capacity to resistand even dominate some spaces. For example, asHarris discusses elsewhere, women who acquiesceto established power relations may well findthemselves more disadvantaged than those whoresist (Harris 2004).

In his article on Bourdieu, Navarro uses the term‘misrecognition’ to describe the process ofmystification by which the powerful use theirsymbolic capital to prevent individuals fromrecognising that their subordination is culturallyconstructed rather than ‘natural’. He argues thatsociology transforms power because of its potentialto reveal this process and thus liberate people fromtheir misconceptions. The idea that power can bewielded culturally as well as economically so thatpeople consent willingly to it chimes with CathyShutt’s personal account of her time as adevelopment volunteer in the Philippines. There from

IDS Bulletin Volume 37 Number 6 November 2006 5

her position as an expatriate aid worker sheaccumulated what Bourdieu would describe assymbolic capital by learning to speak ‘Aidlish’ andmystify her local colleagues through her dexteritywith logical framework analysis and other artefactsof Aidland. Shutt comments on how this symbolicpower was enhanced by her own belief in the meritsof such artefacts, leading to the question as towhether being legitimate in the eyes of othersmeans you must yourself be a believer.

However, as Moncrieffe points out, not everyonereacts in the same way to mystification processes.People may not be mystified – they may not haveinternalised power – but on the contrary may haverationally decided that in the circumstances it is intheir best interests to consent to, rather thancontest power. Such a decision may be one based onfear of the possibly violent consequences should theychallenge power. But it can be argued that forsustaining the social order, brute coercion is verymuch a last resort that is likely to be untenable overtime (Haugaard 2003). The exception to thisargument are those situations where violence hasbecome embedded in everyday social processes.Domestic violence is a leading example of this.

If violence becomes an institutionalised form ofpower, as in Haiti, it creates continuous instabilityand injustice. Moncrieffe provides a vivid anddepressing account of how power operates in thatcountry through a combination of violence andstigma – the ‘power of labelling’, which isreproduced in the socialisation of children, includingthose living on the street who learn to adapt ordevelop subcultures of contestation.

The socialisation of violence is also a theme ofHunter’s article. Taking the case of South Africa, shediscusses how the family can be a mechanism forsocialisation in which women can be complicit inperpetuating patriarchal values including the sociallycondoned practice of violence against women. Insuch a context, the power of a benign state can beharnessed as a counterbalance but efforts throughlegislation to reduce the practice of violence may belimited in impact when societal forms of socialcontrol remain unchallenged.

Thus, the question remains as to the extent to whichin most places at most times, social order isdependent upon people consenting to power, either

knowingly or unknowingly, and adapting to it.Robert Chambers, like Arendt, argues that there isnothing necessarily bad in one person having powerover another; it all depends what they do with thatpower. In her analysis of power and gender relationsin a Mali village, Harris stresses that the superiorpower position conferred upon men is a result of‘traditional methods of maintaining social order’(what Bourdieu would describe as habitus) that areaccepted and confirmed by all concerned. From thisperspective, even if people become conscious of thecultural construction of power (that is they are notmystified by it), they may accept the societalarrangements for the sake of the stability andsecurity that these provide. This meansaccommodating power and deciding that the short-term benefits are worth more than radical change inthe future. Thus, Eyben discusses how recipients ofinternational aid are in a typical client relationshipwith more powerful patrons. By taking aid, whichthey badly need, they confirm the economic andsymbolic dominance of the donor and hence thecurrent world social order that aid flows help tosustain. On the other hand, her case study showshow those in power in the recipient government infact managed to avoid in practice what they hadbeen obliged to agree to in principle and to convertto other ends much of the money destined forgreater popular participation.

Consenting to the power of the prevailing socialorder as noted with reference to Moncrieffe’s study,may imply adapting while resisting through what DeCerteau (1988) and Scott (1987) refer to as theeveryday tactics of the weak over the strong. ThusHarris notes while tradition in rural Mali gives all menpower over all women, there is also another moresilent tradition by which older women have powerover younger men although this is not openlydiscussed. If it were to be openly acknowledged,such ‘tacit’ power may harder to maintain.

As Moncrieffe discusses, individuals or groups wholearn how to take advantage of the existing societalarrangements can become quite powerful – leadersof street gangs, for example – in circumstances whichwould seem culturally to disfavour them. This poses aconundrum for teachers and social activists. Shouldthey encourage critical inquiry into prevailinginequality and injustice or enable people to learn howto make the best of their existing situation? (Hayward2000). Navarro argues that if the leaders of the

Eyben, Harris and Pettit Introduction: Exploring Power for Change6

Brazilian landless movement had studied Bourdieuthey would not have established arrangements forthe collective management of the sequestered landbecause such arrangements released women’s labourfrom the control of their husbands, and bychallenging the prevailing cultural traditions ofpatriarchy created a resistance among themovement’s followers to farming along cooperativelines with resulting low levels of productivity. Whileclearly not supporting the continuance of patriarchy,Navarro poses an interesting question as to theextent to which a social movement should challengeall aspects of prevailing power in circumstanceswhere this might be detrimental to the movement’smembers’ capacity to secure sustainable livelihoods. Inwhich case, as Gaventa asks, which are the optimalspaces for change in challenging power? And whodecides what is optimal?

5 Contesting powerOur team’s experiences with participatoryapproaches to development have led us to explorepower and relationships from diverse perspectives.As Gaventa discusses, we have learnt that spaces forparticipation are not neutral but are themselvesshaped by relations of power that both surround andenter them. This view of power as relational, sharedby all contributors to this IDS Bulletin, has implicationsfor strategies for challenging power and contrastswith another view of power common in variousdisciplines. In international relations, for example,power is often understood as a resource – economic,military, human – which is finite in its availability andis wielded to exert domination. Human history isviewed as the story of competition for distributionand redistribution of these resources. Navarro inanalysing Bourdieu sees power in this way as well,but with the very important proviso that theresource – or capital – is culturally constructedthrough social relations. Thus resources have nointrinsic value other than the meaning we ourselvesgive to them and it is symbolic capital thatdetermines the meaning, and therefore the value, ofresources. Thus a radical way of challenging power isto deny its legitimacy.

Understanding power as constructed throughpatterns of social relations that are reproducedthrough processes of socialisation provides an agendafor contesting power that concerns changing theway people relate to each other – including changingthe meanings they give to these relationships.

Robert Chambers uses the language of ‘uppers’ and‘lowers’ to describe situations in which one personhas power over another, while stressing that aperson may be an ‘upper’ in one context and a‘lower’ in another. Gaventa in his article on entrypoints for change starts from the position of lookingat the institutional and cultural structures that enabledomination. Using the idea of ‘three faces of power’– visible, hidden and invisible – he suggests thatpolitical processes are shaped not just by contestsover (visible) interests that take place in observable orpublic spaces but also by the structures of relationsthat set the rules of the game (or hidden structures)so that some have more power than others toinfluence outcomes, as well as by invisible poweralready discussed. Gaventa then takes Chambers’ ideaof context and turns this into concepts of ‘space’ and‘place’. By ‘space’ he means the ways in whichparticipation or political engagement occurs, forexample whether power is contested in formalparliamentary institutions or through autonomoussocial movements; by ‘place’ he means the arenas ofpolitical struggles, from the very local level of thefamily or community up to national and even globallevels.

When power is seen as a finite resource, inevitablythe history of humanity will be one of contest. If wesee contestation as ‘natural’ or inevitable then itbecomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But what if powerwere understood more like a balloon that can beinfinitely expanded? Could we explore power forchange by looking for entry points towards achievingharmonious and equitable social relations? AlthoughGaventa sees power primarily in terms of conflict orcontestation, both he and Chambers are interestedin the idea of how spaces for participation canexpand power so that more people have it, withChambers being more interested in how this can beachieved without anyone losing out, as we now goon to discuss.

6 Expanding powerNot seeing power as a zero-sum game has longbeen a preoccupation of Chambers who argues thatpositive change can be more easily achieved throughidentifying win-win situations (Saxena et al. 1989). Inhis article in this IDS Bulletin, he comments that byassuming that power is never given up without afight, those struggling for social justice may bemissing important opportunities for engaging withthe powerful. An example would be working with

IDS Bulletin Volume 37 Number 6 November 2006 7

decision-makers on the assumption that they aretrying their best but are constrained by theinadequacies of their own bureaucratic organisations.Resistance can be reduced by inviting more people tohelp them seize such opportunities.

Understanding power in this way is underpinned by anormative preference for cooperation rather thancompetition. As such, it has a very long philosophicalhistory. This includes a strand in feministunderstandings of the political that emphasises thatthe value of the common good as achieved throughdemocratic sharing and participation, in contrast to aliberal concept of democracy, as being an arenawhere competing interests come to some kind ofbargain or settlement about the balance of power insociety (Mouffe 1997). Conversely, Hunter’s study ofthe passing of the Prevention of Family Violence Actin South Africa in 1993 reveals the complexity of anyparticular attempt to change societal powerrelations, with both the expansion of power throughnew coalitions of women across political divides andpolitical opportunism by an authoritarian partydesperately seeking new voters.

Taylor and Boser pursue a similar line of thoughtwhen seeking to avoid thinking of power relations interms of them and us, which can be particularlychallenging when those resisting change are actingin an adversarial fashion. Yet, they argue, if one iscapable of learning not to internalise the conflict andnot to counter aggressive power with a furtheraggressive reaction, there are real possibilities ofachieving greater participation and more equalpower relations within organisations such asinstitutions of higher education. Approaches tolearning that aim to transform society would thus bereinforced by the day-to-day practice of the staff,enhancing the possibility that their students in turnmight be agents of change in their future careers asdevelopment actors.

Gaventa’s idea of expanding power, on the otherhand, makes no assumptions that someone else doesnot have to give it up. Rather he suggests strategiesfor expanding power among those who are currentlypowerless, for example through building horizontalalliances that link up different spatial entry points forchange. However, he stresses that without priorawareness, building such new strategies forexpanding power may be captured by prevailinginterests. This idea of raising awareness, encouraging

critical reflection or discursive consciousness, runsthrough all the contributions to this IDS Bulletin, towhich we finally turn.

7 Transforming powerMany people in a subordinate position may questionthe way the world is ordered but do not organisethemselves for strategic resistance because of thefear of the consequences should they fail. Theywould need to gain support from others to developnew ways of understanding – or frameworks ofmeaning – about how the world could work. Whatare the conditions that allow for the mobilisation ofsuch support? Power with is a term that has beencoined to refer to the building of common groundamong different interests, the development ofshared values and strategies and the creation ofcollective strength through organisation (Rowlands1997). Power with depends on individuals and groupsreleasing their power within through a process of selfinterrogation or consciousness raising.Empowerment frameworks have been developed byactivists that draw on these concepts of power andcan serve as guides to action, including the likely risksin applying these (Veneklasen and Miller 2002). Onesuch risk is pointed to by Shutt who comments thatwhether one’s actions from a position of power tosupport empowerment are interpreted as helpfuland creating power to or trying to gain control(power over), is highly subjective and is shaped by thebeliefs and values of those one is seeking to help.

Chambers, an avowed optimist, argues that througha ‘pedagogy of the powerful’ power over can be usedas an empowering opportunity for both themselvesand those they are seeking help; ‘with less powergoes a better experience of life’. Harris uses aSocratic approach of asking questions, setting off atrain of self enquiry leading to changed behaviour.However, she does not necessarily agree withChambers that men, when ‘uppers’ in a relationshipwith women, are likely to voluntarily give up power.

In both cases however, it is an approach to learningthat encourages self scrutiny. Both Pettit’s and Taylorand Boser’s articles focus on the importance ofteachers and facilitators themselves reflecting ontheir power in promoting wider learning for change.Pettit emphasises the benefits of cyclical andexperiential methods that can help educators andthose they are learning with to understand powernot just conceptually and cognitively but through the

Eyben, Harris and Pettit Introduction: Exploring Power for Change8

senses, emotions, creativity, intuition and embodiedforms of knowledge as means of accessing andtransforming power. On the other hand, Taylor andBoser recognise how emotional stress in situationsof adversarial power relations can block attempts tobe reflexive. They ask:

How do we nurture ourselves and others duringsuch times? What strategies enable us to maintainopenness to learning during periods of conflictand stress? And what are the implications for therole of, and necessary skills for, leadership inparticipatory processes?

In an article that includes reflecting on their personalexperience of confronting power in their ownorganisations, the authors conclude that thedevelopment of trust and working cooperativelyrather than in an adversarial manner, is key toaltering power relations.

8 Conclusion: knowing powerIn the introduction to her article and reflecting onher growing up in Jamaica, Moncrieffe considers thedual role of power to which we referred at the startof this introduction, and in that respect considersBourdieu’s theme of misrecognition:

Power, in practice, can be repressive and evenlend itself to violence; conversely, power is crucialfor producing healthy changes in social relations,such as would profit those subsisting in conditionsof poverty or those subjected to various forms ofinjustice; repressive power is most potent anddurable when people accept and uphold the(mis)perceptions and conditions that underpintheir own inequality; therefore, much hinges onthe extent to which, in the emerging socialcontexts, people are adequately challenged torecognise, confront and transform the sociallyacquired dispositions that allow for repression,both of others and of themselves.

How can a team of researchers and teachers –knowledge specialists – contribute to this challenge,bearing in mind Pettit’s discussion of how our ownlives are full of contradictions and that we areourselves often failing to confront our ‘sociallyacquired dispositions’ that reproduce injustice?

One way to confront these dispositions is to addressissues of power in our everyday professional practice

within our own organisations, as discussed by Taylorand Boser. A further way is for team members towork with those whom Chambers has called ‘lowers’to support them to reconceptualise their own powerpositions and work with them to help improve theircapacity to develop power within and power with. Yetanother could be to take up Chambers’ challenge ofworking with ‘uppers’ to support them in cedingpower or, to express it more felicitously, sharing it.Harris’ work with men in Mali and elsewhere is acase in point.

Not all members of the team would necessarilysupport all of these options. But all understandknowledge as a resource in the power field and, asGaventa and Cornwall stress in their article, seek tomake the production of knowledge moredemocratic.2 Therefore, a diversity in understandingand approaches within our own team is anexpression of the importance we place on therebeing no single way of understanding the world orof promoting social justice. This reflects acommitment to help others find their ownunderstandings rather than having power(understood in the Foucauldian sense as discipline)interpret the world for them in a way that isdisempowering.

Thus, the contributions to this IDS Bulletin and theways in which power is interrogated are very varied,despite a shared commitment to exploring itsmeaning for social change. In categorising power inthe way we have, our intention has not been to offera comprehensive or exclusive framework for analysingpower. Rather, in our presentation of the argument,we have sought to construct a positive spiral betweenreflection and transformation, concluding that therole of the action researcher/teacher is to explorewith others – students, activists, practitioners,policymakers and communicators – as to how powercan be harnessed for change and to work alongsidethem in tracing and learning from the myriad ofmicro level efforts, successes and failures.

Other than in Hunter’s discussion of the state and thescope for legal activism in renegotiating the conceptsof public and private domains, missing from thiscollection of articles is any central analysis of power interms of the connections between the diffuseoperations of power in society and the formal politicalinstitutions that reflect, reproduce and potentiallycontribute to changing power. It is worth noting that

IDS Bulletin Volume 37 Number 6 November 2006 9

the Participation, Power and Social Change team alsohosts the Development Research Centre onCitizenship, Participation and Accountability and in itsnew cycle of work, one of the Centre’s three researchthemes relates to how new democratic institutionsand new patterns of activism open politicalopportunities for people to express their interests andnegotiate in political arenas. A second theme concernshow violence shapes relations between states andtheir citizens (not just as individuals but also ascommunity and family members).

Nevertheless, over and above this work in theCitizenship research programme, the editors believe

there remains a challenge for the team as a whole inexpanding our own knowledge of power so as notto be constrained by conventional theoretical anddisciplinary distinctions. In particular, we might wantto go further along the road that Hunter hasindicated, exploring how power shapes citizens’constructions of state institutions and the potentialrole of these institutions, including developmentorganisations, in harnessing public power as acounterbalance to patriarchal and other forms ofoppressive societal power within families and localcommunities. Thus, we ask our readers both toengage with this work in progress and to encourageus to go further.

Eyben, Harris and Pettit Introduction: Exploring Power for Change10

Notes* The editors are most grateful to Dee Donlan for

her consistent and committed support in chasingthe contributors, for constructive editing of thedrafts and overall for helping this IDS Bulletin seethe light of day.

1 Ladbury, S. (2006) ‘An independent review of twoIDS programmes – ‘Repositioning Participation’

and ‘Power, Participation and Change’,unpublished report.

2 Work elsewhere in IDS, particularly within theKnowledge, Technology and Society team, hasalso been exploring these themes.

ReferencesArendt, H. (2003) ‘What is Authority?’, in P. Baehr

(ed.), The Portable Hannah Arendt, New York:Penguin Books: 462–507

De Certeau, M. (1988) The Practice of Everyday Life,Berkeley, CA: University of California

DFID (2006) Unpublished invitation for expressionsof interest in relation to a new ResearchProgramme Consortium, Department forInternational Development

Harris, C. (2004) Control and Subversion: GenderRelations in Tajikistan, London: Pluto Press

Haugaard, M. (2003) ‘Reflections on Seven Ways ofCreating Power’, European Journal of Social Theory6.1: 87–113

Haugaard, M. (1997) The Constitution of Power,Manchester: Manchester University Press

Hayward, C. (2000) Defacing Power, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press

Hindess, Barry (1996) Discourses of Power: FromHobbes to Foucault, Oxford: Blackwell

IDS Annual Report 2004–05, Brighton: IDS: 4Klouda, T. (2004) ‘Thinking Critically, Speaking

Critically’, unpublished paper

Lovell, T. (2003) ‘Resisting with Authority: HistoricalSpecificity, Agency and the Performative Self’,Theory, Culture and Society 20.1: 1–17

Mosse, D. (2005) ‘Power Relations and PovertyReduction’, in R. Alsop (ed.), Power, Rights andPoverty: Concepts and Connections, Washington DCand London: World Bank / DFID: 51–67

Mouffe, C. (1997) ‘Feminism, Citizenship and RadicalPolitics’, in J. Butler and J.W. Scott (eds) FeministsTheorize the Political, New York: Routledge

Rowlands, J. (1997) Questioning Empowerment:Working with Women in Honduras, Oxford: Oxfam

Saxena, N., Shah, T. and Chambers, R. (1989) To theHands of the Poor: Water and Trees, New Delhi:Oxford and IBH Publishing, and London:Intermediate Technology Publications

Scott, J. (1987) Weapons of the Weak, Newhaven, CT:Yale University Press

Veneklasen, L. with Miller, V. (2002) A New Weave ofPower, People and Politics, Oklahoma: WorldNeighbours: 39–57