Newsletter 275 — September 18, 2023
Heidi Burgess and Guy Burgess
First of all, we are pleased to announce that the Toda Peace Institute has just published a major paper that we have written which provides an update and overview of our latest thinking on how hyper-polarization and other destructive intractable conflicts present serious threats to democracy, and how massively parallel peacebuilding can be utilized to respond to this threat. The paper is Toda's 200th Policy Brief, entitled Massively Parallel Problem Solving and Democracy Building: An Ongoing Response to the Threats to Democracy in the U.S. We will soon be posting this on BI as well, and sending it out in installments in several upcoming newsletters. But it is available now, in its entirety, at Toda.
This newsletter is the last of a set of three newsletters which we are rerunning from early in 2023, to fill in the time when we were on vacation, and also because we think these ideas are ones worth revisiting from time to time. The first (Newsletter 271) reintroduced our concept of constructive confrontation, which suggests that advocates apply conflict resolution insights to their first-party advocacy strategies for better results. The second (Newsletter 273) explored how that can be done using a constructive balance of interest-, rights- and power-based strategies. And this last one explores the concept of "power" more deeply, illustrating that power is not simply force or coercion, but rather includes three approaches: integrative power, exchange power, and coercive power, with integrative power actually being the most powerful of the three.
In the first part of our discussion of constructive confrontation strategies (Newsletters 95 and 273), we explored Ury, Brett, and Goldberg's distinction between distressed and healthy dispute resolution systems. Healthy systems, they said, were ones that resolved most problems with interest-based negotiation or, if that failed, some adjudication process for determining rights. They reserved what they called "power strategies" for use in only the most intractable of problems. By "power strategies," they meant coercive power. While they acknowledged that "power" is actually more nuanced than the destructive, coercive power that was the focus of their analysis, they did not delve into those nuances in their book Getting Disputes Resolved. To understand this more nuanced view of power, we look to Kenneth Boulding and Paul Wehr.
We have a lot of posts about power and the power strategy mix on Beyond Intractability, including a Fundamentals essay on Power, a Conflict Frontiers Video, and a Constructive Conflict Initiative Blog Post on the power strategy mix. Still, we thought that it would be useful to write an updated post for our current blog to draw attention, again, to this critical concept because it is very important in the context of our current political struggles and our discussion of hyper-polarization.
The term "power strategy mix" was coined by peace scholar (and one of the founders of Beyond Intractability's parent organization the Conflict Information Consortium) Paul Wehr, who, in turn, drew on the ideas Kenneth Boulding developed in his book The Three Faces of Power. Boulding argued that there are three types (or faces) of power or what Wehr called power strategies: destructive force or "coercive power;" productive "exchange power;" and cohesive "integrative power."
Destructive power is characterized by threats: "you do as I say, or else I'll do something that hurts you. If such threats are not legitimized by accompanying appeals to exchange and integrative power, they are likely to provoke resentment and a powerful backlash that undermines relationships and, in the event that the threat is defied, highly destructive power contests.
Exchange power is much more productive because it is the foundation of mutually beneficial collaboration and Adam Smith's notion of the "invisible hand" that is at the core of so much of human progress. The basic formulation, according to Boulding, is "if you do this for me, then I'll do that for you." Economies are the systems that societies use to manage these exchanges. Negotiation about other issues (beyond economic ones) also can lead to productive trades that leave everyone better off.
Integrative power, according to Boulding, is the power to create relationships, to bring and hold people together. Relationships of love and respect rest on integrative power. Families, organizations, communities, and even nations are brought and held together with integrative power. Integrative power is what drives people to take care of their children, even when it is costly and inconvenient. It is what drives people to sacrifice for their teams, for their church, for their work groups, for their community or nation, and for their identity groups. They do it because they want to be a valued part of those communities — or because they believe that it is simply "the right thing to do."
Although integrative power generally isn't even considered to be power, Boulding asserted that "it is the most significant of the three major categories of power. Without some sort of legitimacy, which is an aspect of integrative power, neither threat power nor economic power can be realized to any large degree." (Boulding, Three Faces of Power, p. 109). Concurring, Gene Sharp, one of the leading scholars of nonviolent direct action, long argued that tyrants cannot rule without the support of a great many of their subjects. Though many comply out of fear, the tyrant always needs a large cadre of loyal followers to carry out his threats. Similarly, negotiation (exchange power) cannot happen if there isn't an agreement about the process and the expectation that the other side will negotiate in good faith and the parties will live up to their commitments.
What Paul Wehr added to this formulation was that the most effective way to produce change is to use two or three types of power simultaneously. He called the combination the "power strategy mix." When we taught about this, we used to present the mix as a set of recipes. Depending on the situation, you might want a lot of eggs — a binding agent (i.e., integrative power), more sugar (an enticement or exchange power) or more vinegar (sour — a threat).
We also showed this rather complicated graphic.
Across the top, under the heading “Types of People,” you’ll see that we have listed four different groups.
- People who are easily convinced to do what you want we refer to as “persuadables.” These are people who are likely to go along with what you want, particularly if you frame your requests on the basis of common values, beliefs, or group obligations. So, if you can show someone that what you are asking for is consistent with other things they believe in, they are likely to agree.
- The second group, which we call the "reluctant persuadables," consists of people who can probably be persuaded to do what you want, but will take more convincing that the first group. This may be because compliance would require significant sacrifice on their part, or there may be fewer or less obvious common values with which to frame your argument.
- The third group, which we call "traders," consists of people who don't really care about the principles all that much; they just want to see what's in it for them. So, if you can make your request part of a mutually beneficial exchange, they are likely to go along.
- Finally, there are the "incorrigibles" who are steadfastly opposed to doing what is requested, even if it is accompanied by significant incentives or persuasive arguments. Remember, here we are talking about requests for somebody to do their fair share to advance the community's interest — not selfish requests from one party who is trying to exploit another. At the extreme, these incorrigibles are the bad-faith actors that we have written about elsewhere.
In order to use power most effectively, it’s important to figure out which type of person you’re dealing with, and then design a strategy that mixes the power types appropriately. At the bottom of the chart you can see a legend that color codes the various types of power. Coercive power is illustrated with red, exchange power is illustrated with orange, and integrative power is illustrated with yellow.
Above the legend, there are four bars, one for each of the four different types of people. The width of the bar is roughly proportional to the size of each group. The colors of each bar indicate the appropriate mix of power strategies.
So, for example, if you decide you’re working with somebody who is likely to be a persuadable, it makes no sense to use coercive power. All it’s going to do is make them angry. You probably don't even need to exchange anything. They are likely to do what you ask, once you explain why it is consistent with their values, their group's norms or judgments, or simply because they recognize you as a valued member of "their group" and they don't want to harm their relationship with you.
The next group of people — more numerous than the persuadable group — is the reluctant persuadables. These people still might be convinced to go along with your wishes, but it is going to take more work than it took with the first group to get their support. They might need a little coercion to force them to address the issue, some exchange to to reduce the costs of complying, and some integrative power to show them how their compliance will help advance not only your interests, but also their group's values and interests. Still, once you engage them, integrative power is likely to be most effective strategy to use and the one least likely to provoke resentment and backlash.
If you are dealing with a trader, you should focus mostly on exchange power and concentrate your efforts on putting together a mutually-beneficial package of incentives that will help them see that working with you is a win-win opportunity. You may also be able to increase your chances of success through integrative appeals to their sense of community and community responsibility. You might also benefit from a little bit of coercion to try to get them to listen to you in the first place. This is one of the principal uses of protest actions — to get people to pay attention to a problem that they would otherwise ignore. Coercion can also help make exchange possible in cases where the parties don't trust each other. The coercion implied by contracts and other legally-enforceable agreements can help make people accept trades (especially in situations in which they are concerned about being double crossed). And once the parties comply with the agreement, this can provide a foundation for improving the relationship (i.e. strengthening integrative power) over the long term. Nevertheless, for traders, the primary focus should be on exchange, and coercion should be used in as small a portion as possible.
When it comes to dealing with uncompromising, hostile, and aggressive people who have little, if any, regard for the common good, you don’t really have much choice. You have to employ coercive power to protect yourself and the community from their generally coercive actions. You’ll note that the fourth, incorrigible bar in the graphic is much skinnier than the others. That is not an accident—it’s on purpose. It is because very few people are truly incorrigible — even though we often think of our adversaries in incorrigible terms. However, almost everyone falls into one of the other three categories. So, if you routinely use coercion and think of all your adversaries as incorrigibles, you are going to be needlessly making a lot of people angry. This is likely to provoke a backlash that undermines, rather than advances, your interests. Hence, almost always, you should use a different power strategy mix.
When you really do have to use coercion, for instance, to influence actual incorrigibles, the key to limiting destructive backlash is to only use coercion in ways that are broadly seen as legitimate, based on widely held values (in other words mixed with integrative power.) For example, if the coercion takes the form of enforcing laws against violent intimidation, most people will accept such actions. If it takes the form of giving tickets to people who violate traffic laws, that too is likely to be accepted, as people understand the need for traffic laws to keep drivers and passengers safe. However, the use of coercion for selfish ends (e.g. the use of non-compete clauses in fast-food employee contracts to prevent them from switching to a higher-paying job at a different restaurant) will not be seen as legitimate, and will likely generate opposition.
The key idea here is you don’t use the same power strategy mix with everybody. And you don’t fall back on coercion or threat as your primary strategy except in exceptional circumstances when you are dealing with people who are truly incorrigible and who pose a significant threat.
So how does all this apply to our situation in the fall of 2024?* Just as we said in Part 1 of this series on planning a constructive confrontation strategy, most people seem to assume that all or most of the people on the other side are "incorrigible" and the only way to get them to budge off their "ridiculous" positions is through coercive power (i.e. force). But that usually is not the case. As More in Common explained in their 2019 report entitled The Perception Gap: How False Impressions are Pulling Americans Apart, people on both the left and the right assume that people on the other side are more extreme than they actually are. They do not realize the number of commonalities they share; they do not trust the other side; and they therefore do not consider using either the exchange or the integrative power strategies to get what they want or need. Instead, they rely on coercive power — trying to force the other side to bend to their wishes, even though they are not likely to do so. And, even if they do bend, they are likely to resent it, and try to "get back" at those who forced them to do something against their will as soon as such retribution becomes feasible.
This is a large part of the appeal of Trump — he promises to get back at all those "awful progressives" who are attacking so much of what conservatives see as good in America. And for their part, Harris and the progressive left are promising to eradicate what they consider to be sexist and racist policies of the Republicans But these policies are ones which Republicans see simply as trying to protect their own need for identity and security. Rather than looking at our common need for respected identities and security, we assume "the other" is out to get us and we must fight back against them with all our might. And we focus our appeals on fear of the other, rather than hope for the future. This fear is making many of us depressed and withdrawn, instead of engaged and actively engaged in problem solving.
The result, however, is continued polarization and pendulum swings from one side to the other. When Trump came into office, his main goal appeared to be to undo everything that Obama had done. When Biden came into power, he tried to reverse as many Trump policies as possible. Now Trump is again campaigning about making the progressives pay. Until the two sides start engaging in exchange and integration, we are not going to be able to solve any of our most pressing problems because, as we have said elsewhere, these problems are not "one-sided problems." We cannot fix immigration, or abortion, or racism or climate or health care or inflation or any other pressing problem with only half of the power structure and the electorate on board. We need cooperation — and a big dollop of integration. Only when we use those to drive collaborative problem solving will we be able to effectively address our many shared problems.
-------------------------------
* This originally said "spring of 2023, but we changed it here to fall of 2024 and we replaced "Biden" with "Harris" in reference to who is running for president. Other than that though, what we said in 2023 remains true for fall
Please Contribute Your Ideas To This Discussion!
In order to prevent bots, spammers, and other malicious content, we are asking contributors to send their contributions to us directly. If your idea is short, with simple formatting, you can put it directly in the contact box. However, the contact form does not allow attachments. So if you are contributing a longer article, with formatting beyond simple paragraphs, just send us a note using the contact box, and we'll respond via an email to which you can reply with your attachment. This is a bit of a hassle, we know, but it has kept our site (and our inbox) clean. And if you are wondering, we do publish essays that disagree with or are critical of us. We want a robust exchange of views.
About the MBI Newsletters
Once a week or so, we, the BI Directors, share some thoughts, along with new posts from the Hyper-polarization Blog and and useful links from other sources. We used to put this all together in one newsletter which went out once or twice a week. We are now experimenting with breaking the Newsletter up into several shorter newsletters. Each Newsletter will be posted on BI, and sent out by email through Substack to subscribers. You can sign up to receive your copy here and find the latest newsletter here or on our BI Newsletter page, which also provides access to all the past newsletters, going back to 2017.
NOTE! If you signed up for this Newsletter and don't see it in your inbox, it might be going to one of your other emails folder (such as promotions, social, or spam). Check there or search for beyondintractability@substack.com and if you still can't find it, first go to our Substack help page, and if that doesn't help, please contact us.
If you like what you read here, please ....