Power as the Achievement of Ends: A Problematic Approach in Family and Small Group Research

Abstract

Most conceptions of power refer to the relative ability of persons to achieve individual ends in interpersonal contexts in which their ends conflict. Within groups, such as the family, which are characterized by functionally disuse and ongoing relations, there are serious methodological problems with determining actors' ends. This has led to the use of a variety of substitute procedures that allow one to talk of power without assessing the particular ends of specific persons. This paper critically examines these substitute procedures and suggests their inadequacy for the study of families and similar small groups. It is suggested that an alternative to power must be found in order to proceed with the work for which that concept has been used. The sketch of one alternative is presented and its implications discussed.

Domineeringness and Dominance: A Transactional View

“…At a general level, most definitional statements reflect the classic Weberian notion that power refers to the ability to affect social outcomes (Gerth & Mills, 1946, 180). But at the research level, it has been operationalized in various, and largely unsatisfactory, ways (Safdios-Rothchild, 1970; Olson & Rabunsky, 1972; Turk, 1974; Cromwell & Olson (eds. ), 1975; Bochner, 1976;Rollins & Bahr, 1976).…”

Wife's Decision-Making Power in a Chinese Context

“…With regard to the validity issue, while some have suggested that researchers abandon the final say decision measure and even the concept of marital power itself (Turk, 1974), Allen (1984) argues such a conclusion may be premature.…”

Conceptual Frontiers in the Study of Communication in Families: An Introduction to the Literature

“…Power is one of the few concepts which has been compatible with the different orientations of both family sociologists and clinical researchers. Unfortunately, the concept of family power is beset with a hornet's nest of conceptual and methodological problems (Safilios-Rothchild, 1970;Turk, 1974).…”

“…Family process, the means by which families negotiated decisions, was not observed. Even when interaction measures were introduced, such measures were based on questionable assumptions about communication and failed to index appropriately the complexity of family decision-making processes (Turk, 1974). Most of these measures define power in terms of arbitrary criteria, such as the frequency of participation (Farina, 1960;Mishler & Waxler, 1968), the relative number of leadership acts initiated (Kenkel, 1957), or the ratio of instrumental acts to directive instrumental acts (Caputo, 1963).…”

“…Such a model would relate family process to outcome by concentrating on the interactional configurations which produce family decisions (see, e.g., Olson & Rabinsky, 1972). An important step in this direction has been taken by Turk (1974), who suggests that power research should be designed to identify the patterns of interaction by which outcomes are achieved. This model of power is particularly relevant to the design of communication research, since it moves the conceptualization of power from a phenomenon or trait residing within a person to the outcome or product of transactional patterns between persons.…”