Essay: “Power” by John Scott

The human experience is based on relationships, relationships between families, friends, communities and nations. In some form or another, all of these relationships involve domination. We can use John Scott’s theory of domination to analyse the power relationships in our personal lives.
A typical relationship of domination describes the social relation between two actors; the ‘principal’ or leadership figure and their ‘subaltern’ who responds to the demands of the principal. In his 2001 book “Power”, John Scott discusses the relationships of domination by identifying four ideal types of principals, which he classifies through the use of animal archetypes; the Lion, Fox, Owl and Bear. These ideal types are derived from the elementary forms of social power; corrective influence and persuasive influence. The archetypes depend primarily on the nature of the available resources and how they are employed. (Scott, 2001)
Corrective influence involves the direct use of resources as deterrents or incentives for the subaltern. The Lion and the Fox represent methods of corrective influence. A Lion would establish a structure of leadership through the use of coercion, this involves the physical use of force but relies on the threat of force to sustain it. A Fox, on the contrary, gains authority through manipulation or inducement with the offering of rewards for submission. Both of these leadership structures depend on the consistent use of resources to maintain authority. (Scott, 2001)
Persuasive influence, however, focuses on changing the values and beliefs of the subalterns through the use of reasoning, knowledge, and arguments, and thus is easier to maintain in the long term. The Bear and Owl models represent different forms of persuasive influence. A Bear is typically appointed power through systems such as the popular vote (i.e. presidents) or birth-right (i.e. Royal families). This results in a general acceptance of a bear’s power as ‘legitimate’. (Scott, 2001)
The “Owl” archetype, the focus of this essay, is a form of persuasive influence based primarily on the concept of trust. The principal is regarded as an expert with specialised knowledge or skills and is trusted to give appropriate advice. Dominance is metaphorically handed to the “Owl” through the subalterns acceptance of their own lack in competence. (Scott, 2001) Professions such as teachers, doctors and scientists are often perceived as Owls as they are seen as experts in their respective fields.
It could be argued, I have experienced the “Owl” power relationship in my personal life as a principal. I briefly lived in Madrid where as I worked as an Au Pair. Aside from the usual babysitting tasks, the main objective was to teach the children (aged 3 and 6) English. Reflecting the concept of trust as the basis of authority for an ‘Owl’, (Scott, 2001) the initial challenge I encountered was gaining the trust of my children. Naturally, as I was a stranger who couldn’t fully speak their language and was suddenly living in their house, this took a few weeks to develop. I ultimately gained their trust through methods of inducement, resembling the actions of a “Fox”. The methods included organising activities such as baking and decorating cookies and conducting science experiments such as making a baking soda volcano. By peaking their interest with these activities the resulting increase in time spent together I was slowly able to gain their trust and prove my initial monopoly over knowledge.
Scott notes that a principal will attempt to ensure their “technical knowledge remains an esoteric monopoly” (Scott, 2001, p. 23) in order to maintain the aforementioned basis of trust. In the context of my position, I was effectively handed the role of the expert. However in order to maintain this position I had to continue to prove my monopoly. In terms of the English language it was clear I had the expertise, however the children had a significantly better grasp on the Spanish language and therefore a monopoly in their own right. To overcome this balance of power I had to demonstrate additional skills such as teaching my kids how to swim and cooking dinner.
My role as an expert differed from the typical example of a teacher, as I have had no formal training or degree. I am however a native English speaker and have general life skills such as being able to cook. Thus the methods of teaching I employed varied from the typical classroom setting. Due to children’s natural ability to learn primarily through interaction and exposure meant I was able to focus on methods the children enjoyed such as playing games, songs and reading books, Winnie the Pooh being a favourite. My ability to adapt to their preferred methods of learning gained me respect and therefore dominance in our relationship.
One observable manifestation of the power of the Owl is that they are listened to. Naturally children, like most people, will not listen all the time. In attempt to undermine my power the older of my children refused to speak English, or listen to me when I spoke English. This was very effective for a while until I gained his respect through helping him make an entire origami zoo in the living room. At other instances where my kids refused to listen required me to exercise power employing the corrective influence of the Fox/Lion. This involved rewarding them with TV time when they finished their homework or threatening early bed times if they wouldn’t finish their vegetables. This personal case study clearly proves that these ‘ideal-types’ are in fact such, as they cannot exist in isolation.
The ideal-types of power relationships as identified in John Scott’s book ‘Power’ allow us to analyse the nature of the relationships in our personal lives as seen in my case study of working as an Au Pair. Naturally no one archetype can encompass the entire leadership structure of a relationship and thus these ‘ideal-types’ are often used in correlation.