“Digital media have indeed challenged the dominant media institutions of the late 20th century but it fails to recognise that any challenge is only temporary. Google and Facebook are already busy re-establishing rules and reallocating property rights: the media system is ‘thus likely not to stay permanently in a state of chaos” (Freedman, 2014 p. 22).
The concept of power has many applications and it is difficult to define. In its denotative essence, it means the ability to do something or act in a particular way. Beyond this denotation, it comes with interferences. Electric power for instance. The power in elementary physics, the rate at which work is done, power as cynicism, violence and power as gift God all comes to mind. This study is concerned with the concept of power from the perspective of philosophy and social theory. The history and notion of power in this context can be traced from two orientations, sociological and political. Sociologically orientated researchers reflect upon the concentration of power and consistently conclude it is over centralised. Scholars trained in political science are of the view that in their communities’ power is widely diffused (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962). From the sociological point of view, power is used by corporations to influence behaviours, improve services and maximise profit. From the political perspective, people can use to form of power to challenge corporations and governments. March’s 1966 argument about power is a good starting point to understand power. According to his opinion, power is a dimension that “conveys simultaneously overtones of the cynicism of the Realpolitik, the glories of mechanics, the realism of elite sociology and the comfort of anthropocentric theology” (p 39) cited in (Fortunati, 2014). Although this definition is useful, it doesn’t relate to the element of power this study is concerned with. This study aims to discuss the element of power from the very perspective that power is a spatial notion. There are four notion of power as spatial that relates with the concept of this study, alongside a special attention to the dispositional notion of power from the perspective of Marx, Gramsci and Foucault.
2.11.1 Spatial notion of power
power encompasses a spatial relationship and that space is paramount for any exercise of power. In their view, any form of power relationship can be found in space, where those in power are at the top and rule over and those not in powers are at the bottom, down and under. In reality these expressions can be considered metaphors of spatial orientation, a projection of the physical constitution of our body (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Gibbs, 2008). “Up” is related to a bundle of metaphors that suggest being good, affording a panoptic view, the association of high social position with rationality, having power, and being in control (Fortunati, 2014). Conversely, “down” is associated an opposite meaning: being dejected at the bottom of the pile, being emotional, lacking awareness, being located in a low social position or being a subordinate and lacking control. It is this description of power that makes it attractive and conversely makes the lack of power unattractive.
It is opined that for there to be a relationship of power, the base (subordinate) must have some effect on superstructure (superordinate) and vice versa, (Gramsci, 1992; George Simmel, 1908/1989). A more recent means to explain the spatial dimension of power is to differentiate between “power upon” and “power towards”. McLean, (1966) for instance states that A attempts in some ways try to modify the behaviour of B and so they establish an interdependence between them, or A achieves their goal without necessarily modifying the behaviour of B by allowing the latter to perform any behaviour on the condition that the behaviour of B does not disturb the behaviour of A. In both of these cases, the attitude of A is instrumental towards B and aims to reconfirm their superordinate position. By contrast, the notion of “power towards” means that A uses their power to reconfirm themselves as superordinate but helps B to overcome their condition of being subordinate. In this case, the attitude of A is beneficial towards B. Power towards seems to be most applicable to the concept of empowerment or resistance, since it is more relational and less hierarchical than power upon. Thus, the context in which power acts is taken to be an important factor (Gladwell, 2000). In this study the notion of spatial power is positioned as ‘power toward’ which implies the utilization of the new media including the social media and mobile telephones by Nigerian online users to improve democratic governance.
2.11.2 Relation notion of power
The second notion of power is relational in the sense that power structures itself not only in space and context but also in the social sphere. This form of power is conceptualised as an element that strongly contributes to shaping a social relationship. McLean 1966 summarises power relationships into a four part typology (1) A has effects on B’s choices and actions; 2) A has the
capacity to move B’s choices in ways that A intends; 3) A has the capacity to override opposition from B; 4) The relationship between A and B described by propositions 1, 2 is part of social structure. This typology of power relationships is at the core of various sociological notions such as social stratification, and has class and status as its principal dimensions (Tronti, 1966) cited in Fortunati, (2014).
2.11.3 Relational notion of power regarding social abilities and social strategies
Thirdly, the notion of power is also relational to social abilities and social strategies. One element is the ability of the powerful to strengthen their moral claims by conventionalising their moral defaults (Gouldner, 1970). Another perspective is the ability to prevent opposition (Lockwood, 1966). Studies of political power have focused on decision making processes within the state apparatus and institutions, however such studies have been criticised for neglecting the manipulation of the political agenda by powerful groups who prevent issues from emerging and becoming objects of a formal decision making process (Lukes, 1974; Bachrach and Baratz, 1970). Lukes also pointed out that the manipulation is performed by shaping people’s perceptions, cognitions, and preferences in such a way that they accept a subordinate role (Lukes, 1974). This form of power is concerned with rules imposed by the state to which the citizens must adhere. Dispositional form of power.
The fourth and final notion of power is dispositional and relates to the disposition of goods on the basis that property owners offered preferment to pursue their interest. Karl Marx suggests the ownership of means of production and the control over labour are the most important power resources upon which several other power resources are built. Fortunati, 2013; 2014 noted that other resources that complement ownership and control are organisational capacity, numerical support, competence, expert knowledge, control of information, occupation of certain social positions, control of religious and moral values, control of legal norms, control of the instrument of force, and reputation of power itself. However, it is important to note that all these power resources are interchangeable. This notion of disposition, the link between power and ownership, is quite important for understanding domination and empowerment and considered in this study as very relevant to contextual matters in Nigeria’s society. Theoretical exposition of Marx, Gramsci and Foucault is used as benchmark to explain media development and domination in the Nigerian context and, additionally, how elements of their theoretical expositions and that of liberal form of participatory democracy from Mill, Peteman, as means of empowerment could be link to ICTs and be reconceptualised in Sen’s HCDA model to evaluate the actual use and
development outcomes of ICT in the Nigerian context.
2.11.4 Other sources of power
There are other forms of power such as power as cynicism and violence and the ambivalence towards it; and finally there is power as a form of energy and as gift of God. With regards to cynicism it is worth mentioning the comment of Machiavelli (1532/1989) when describing the opinion of people who are more interested in the ends than the means applied to reach the ends (The prince should try to win and maintain the state: means will be always judged honourable and praised by everyone). In relation to violence and the mandate for power, and writing at a time when the Divine authority of Royal rulers was losing credibility, Hume (1748), writes in his treatise of Original Contract: “Almost all of the Governments, which exist at present, have been founded originally, either on usurpation or conquest or both, without any pretence of a fair consent, or voluntary subjection of people.” Given these premises, the ambivalent reaction to power by those not in powers is unsurprising. On the one hand, Bertrand Russell (1938) has pointed out that followers gain vicariously from the achievements of the leader. Finally power in form of energy and gifts of the God: From this perspective, Benveniste (1973) reconstructing the meaning of power in the Indo-European tradition revealed that power is perceived as a gift from Gods, which, in a unilateral decision, is invested given by them to somebody. It is a contingent gift, which has a limited duration. What is important to note here is that power is not in relationship with a particular merit but with an inscrutable divine will. This type of power complements the power explained in the holy Quran where Allah stated that “power” belongs to him. As stated in the Quran Verse 25-26 chapter 3 (Allah said “I am the Owner of Sovereignty, I give sovereignty to whom I wish and I take sovereignty away from whom I wish. I honour whom I wish and I humble whom I wish. In my hand is [all] good. Indeed, I am over all things).
In conclusion of this section, the four aforementioned concepts of power discussed above are related to this study with a particular attention to dispositional notion of power as guide to contextualise Nigeria’s hegemonic media. It seems to be applicable to discuss Nigeria’s contextual political struggle and hegemonic practices in relation to privately o w n e d traditional media companies. Therefore, the next section discusses dispositional notions of power as means of dominance and potential resistance in relation to the recent media use and developmental outcomes.
2.12 Dispositional notion of power: Marx, Gramsci and Foucault theories of power as means