This is an important point that I think doesn’t get enough air time. Power and influence are two very different things, both of which I feel have their own uses and nuances that we should always keep in mind. I want to use these words in a particular way, though, so I give my own definitions below.
Power (noun) – The ability to certainly, or with a high probability, compel or coerce another to do or not do something. Example sources are potential for violence, authority, or rank.
Influence (noun) – The ability to suggest others to do or not do something, with no guarantee of success. Example sources are peer pressure, social standing, or force of personality.
Simply put, having influence means you can make others want to do what you want, but having power means you can make them do what you want. The key thing differentiating them is the probability – as assessed by both the power or influence holder versus the, uh, victim? Object? Yeah, let’s go with subject and object going forward.
The point is, power and influence are socially constructed – people are considered powerful and influential because they possess things considered to be powerful and influential, be it a forceful personality, an incredible work ethic, intelligence bordering on magic, a prestigious education, or simply the willingness and ability to use violence to get what they want. All of these things possess varying degrees of assessed power or influence, in turn based on what they can get you, how the culture you’re in values them, what you can get out of them, and so on.
All the power or influence in the world depends, primarily, on shared belief that they exist.
This is best shown by the cancer survivor math professor who ended up at a table with professional poker players, David Fishman. After winning $129,600 in multiple rounds against the professionals, he starts a round with double aces. For the uninitiated, including myself, double aces is apparently one of the strongest possible starts, so the temptation to bet and win bigger was likely immense, and the commentators say so.
You can hear the commentators’ disbelief when he folds, and refuses to play the hand. Just to show this isn’t a fluke, he does it again with a pair of kings, also a very strong hand. Just when he has the golden opportunity to make more money – he’s already up triple his yearly salary, mind – he refuses to risk it.
The lure of more money has neither power nor influence over him. He has made a life-changing amount already, and he no longer believes in the siren song of greed. The belief that what he has is enough, and is worth giving up future gains for, removes any power or influence opportunities to make more money have on him.
This kind of dynamic is actually pretty common. In a classic narrative trope, an aggressive and belligerent amateur, spouting threats and challenges to a fight, intimidates a humble master, who, when pressed, gladly gives the promising amateur directions into the ground, showing what happens when one misjudges their own power. Chains of unrequited love, where a man pines for a woman who doesn’t even see him, oblivious to his female best friend who supports him every step of the way, also show how differences in belief can cause mutual romantic grief. Stories of these types abound, pointing to a common truth.
So, once again we must ask – what are power and influence like, really? To answer that question, I would like to offer three general rules.
First, power is for lions, and influence is for foxes.
Second, power is the first principle and the last resort.
Third, influence goes where power fears to tread.
Power is for lions, and influence is for foxes
A Prince then being necessitated to know how to make use of that part belonging to a beast, ought to serve himselfe of the conditions of the Foxe and the Lion; for the Lion cannot keep himself from snares, nor the Foxe defend himselfe against the Wolves. – Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
Machiavelli’s The Prince is a book about politics and power, often considered a classic of the genre. In it, he advises princes (that is to say, wielders of power) that there are two ways of doing things. One can do things like a lion – forthright, honest, valuing martial prowess and strength and willing to accept and defeat challengers, or one can do things like a fox – cunning, resourceful, and preferring guile, guise, and strategy to strangle challenges in the cradle. These images of the lion and the fox perfectly encapsulate the overuse of power and influence, respectively.
The lion embodies the use of power. Power is a positive statement of saying “I can do this to/for you, so follow my lead”, which invites the natural reply of “can you really?” Like a defiant child testing a determined parent, others who encounter power are naturally incentivized to test it, and since power rests on a bedrock of belief, any failure to respond convincingly to this challenge weakens belief and erodes your power.
By contrast, the fox embodies the use of influence. Influence is a negative statement of saying “you could do as you intend, but I can offer you a better way”, which invites the natural reply of “Prove it.” Unlike power being coercive, which invites defiance, influence is suggestive, which invites curiosity. Delivering on the promise if called, however, requires power – which is the limiting factor of influence. Influence only extends as far as the influenced believes it extends, in the same way that power does.
This duality also creates complications when attempting to understand when and why power and influence are used. A firm stance can indicate confident power or a bluff to be called, while the opposite can indicate the same things – either that it is beneath the use of power, or beyond it. While context and information can help clarify the situation, in the end, this evaluation is one of belief. This constant arms race of bluffs and beliefs is what makes things so very, very complicated.
In light of this, Machiavelli’s admonition to the prince to master both skills is illuminating. One should adopt both approaches, never tending more towards one or the other, because sometimes you will have the greater power, and sometimes you will not. Sometimes you will see fit to amass the greatest power to end this discussion now, and sometimes to survive and fight another day – the key is to know what time it is.
“Know when to fold ‘em” is truly a timeless moral.
Power is the First Principle and the Last Resort
War is politics by other means. – Carl von Clausewitz
Therefore, politics is every means short of war. – Argo
The willingness and ability to commit violence is the first and most important source of power. Wielded in defense of the self, it protects one from intimidation or coercion. Wielded against wildlife, it allows one to eat and secures one’s life against predation. Wielded against others, it expands one’s resources at their expense. Like it or not, violence is the purest form of power, and, in my opinion, the most instructive.
As powerful as violence is, it is extremely costly. Violence always carries the risk of injury and death – and it is from that risk that all other things stem. Weapons, armor, and tactics are developed to assist in the violence. Negotiations and settlements are made, with gifts, trade, and luxury goods support are offered and accepted in lieu of violence. Within polities, governance, courts, and law enforcement protect individuals from violence. Despite how fundamental power is, we make every effort not to use it, only finally resorting to it in the greatest of extremities. Auction buyers refuse to get into bidding wars unless they consider it necessary. Businesses refuse to go into price wars until forced by competition. Nations refuse to go to war until their situations become intolerable. The consequences of using power can be far-reaching, and can result in a total loss, benefiting no-one in the end.
This raises a conundrum - power, being based on belief, needs to be respected to be proven, but also brooks no opposition,. To crush this opposition requires the use of power, but the opposition will naturally also conceal their power, in order to avoid this exact situation. Since power is based on belief, once powers are invoked, you must also be prepared to see it through to the end, to convince others that you truly possess the power you claim to have.
I think this is why the majority of people do not want or need much power, and do not even like it. Power, as a compelling force, is carefully guarded and shepherded. Once someone seeks it, a reaction to preserve one’s power is warranted. Once someone has it, others will scheme to neuter or take it. Once someone uses it, others will contest it. Once you lose it, others will try to make sure you can never take it again. There is little opportunity to simply use it for one’s own ends and be done with - rather than you controlling it, it controls you.
Not everyone values power over sleeping well at night.
Power is both the first principle – the basis for all influence – and the last resort – the final method of decision if all other methods fail. A beautiful illustration of this phenomenon was recently penned by
, available here. Both overusing and neglecting power are fatal mistakes, so a softer, less committal method is required.Influence goes where Power fears to tread
And finally, there is, once again, a good reason for our paying money to tax lawyers and accountants. Spending money on them is no more a social waste that our purchase of locks, safes, or fences. If there were no crime, expenditure on such safety measures would be a waste, but there is crime. Similarly, we pay money to the lawyers and accountants because, like fences or locks, they are our defense, our shield and buckler, against the tax man. – Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense 2nd ed. (pg. 245)
While we have just shown that power is both the source of most influence and its backer, it is also a blunt instrument, not to be used lightly. Pulling rank on those reporting to you may work sometimes, but you will quickly ruin your relationship by overriding their decisions rather than trying to persuade you. In disagreements with equals, they have the ability to use their own power to refuse. This is the difficulty with power – power is a blunt instrument that quickly transforms cooperation or competition into destruction, changing the game from getting along or agreeing to disagree to kill or be killed. If any proof of this is needed, simply look at governments, willingly binding themselves to constitutions, laws, and bureaucratic procedure in order to avoid direct coercion as necessary.
If one only considers the imbalance of power between government and the individual, this is ludicrous. They can simply take what they want, after all. If one considers what the reaction of other individuals may be to government coercion of one individual, this quickly makes sense. Using coercion on the individual shows that the subject offer nothing, or have nothing to offer, but need something from the object of power, which is a roundabout admission of weakness and dependency. Power is totalizing because it is coercive, but a principled promise to predictably and properly use power can neuter it to the point that a reaction is unwarranted.
This bounded application of power is what I call influence.
Influence is the gentle nudge, the economic incentive, the higher calling, the Organizing Principle, all the ways to carefully harness and control power so that its strength is tempered predictably - to signal that there is a particular means and end to this use of power, and that defense or reaction is unnecessary. Merely sending the signal is also a statement - a statement that the influencer will not recklessly go their own way, but will take your interests into account if you choose to voice them and defend them. To do this, one often sacrifices its ability to ensure the correct outcome, but this is an acceptable sacrifice to get any use out of it at all. Laws, religions, promises, advertisements – all fall under influence, the velvet glove over the steel gauntlet of power.
The best example I can present to you is the dollar hegemony, contrasted with the current push for de-dollarization. The US Dollar was the unquestioned international medium of trade, creating an international demand for the dollar which translated into an incredibly powerful influence. Monetary managers across the world looked to the Federal Reserve for guidance and watched both their dollar reserves and exchange rates with great interest. The greenback was the lifeblood of international trade, and because of that, the US government an important stakeholder in every nation. Many efforts were made to further said influence – Bretton-Woods and the petrodollar agreement come to mind. This influence was also used in a negative manner, with the US denying services to countries that go against its interests. China and the European countries suffer from occasional rounds of trade wars followed by periods of reconciliation, showing that even allies and friends are not immune to this influence. Cuba, Iran, and Syria all suffered embargoes or economic sanctions, the latter being the US refusing to deal with or penalizing parties that dealt with these countries. The effect is similar to their dollars becoming marked money – no longer legal tender and evidence of illegal transactions. Very few states in the world control territories that allow them to be self-sufficient, which means any danger to international trade is a threat that is anywhere from grave to existential.
This also means, however, that should a large enough bloc that opposes these sanctions arrive, with the ability to substitute imports for exports, that sanctions can be mitigated. The influence dissipates with the need for global trade in US Dollars.
After the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, the United States, in coordination with other Western countries, imposed sanctions on Russia to penalize them for the war, likely in hopes of grinding their economy and military to a halt and forcing them to the negotiating table. In response, however, the Russian government simply continues, making partnerships with other countries whose interests have been slighted by the US Influence. In a classic power challenge, the United States along with its allies has decided to stick to its position and throw down the economic gauntlet of sanctions and the military gauntlet in support of Ukraine, and Russia, likely in cooperation with China, has accepted the challenge. The result? I can tell you, that simply by the nature of power and challenges to it, never ends well.
Power Challenges
Direct contests of power and strength between combatants quickly force all others to reveal their hands as well. As new evidence and events shake or reinforce belief in this or that source of power, even those on the sidelines are called into question. This latest shake-up, the Russia-Ukraine War and the visceral reaction of states around the world to it, is a sign of this process. All sides watch each other with opportunistic eyes, looking for changes in beliefs that they can pounce on and convert to their advantage. The main event, however, boils down to a single question.
The United States and allies have offered a challenge to Russia and allies, both of whom are in the process of demonstrating their powers (or concealing their lack of them). The neutral attempt to play both sides off against one another or ally as they see fit. Which of them, if any, do you believe truly controls the situation?
With no clear winner or resolution in sight, the danger lies in reckless moves or escalations that force the parties to further tip their hands. The closer we come to “everyone who is not with us is against us”, the closer we come to pulling the trigger. This is the simple logic of power - it must be jealously guarded and ruthlessly defended. Influence’s goal is to avoid said challenges, but it can only do so by constraining the game with the consent of all parties, which is volatile.
As a perfect illustration, my earliest draft of this piece was last month, July 27th. Since then, tensions have risen over Taiwan, the Chinese economy has been put under the microscope, Igor Strelkov and company have been arrested, the Black Sea grain deal has been revoked, the Niger situation began, Maui has burned. Every player around the table continues to play cards and size each other up, the rattle of the chips increasing in pace.
Power and influence both being based on belief also explains the rapid polarization of most conflicts. A difference in opinions, and likely underlying assumptions and beliefs, quickly puts one on one side or the other of an issue, which rapidly expands to every issue thanks to the human desire to present a consistent self-image. This is why it is so easy, so tempting for us to dig in our heels and stand for one side or the other in every issue, when reality is complicated.
I hope that like in boxing, the ring and the rules have already been set and agreed upon, lest we end with sour grapes followed by a lethal exchange of nuclear warheads in the parking lot after the fight is over. As in the previous section’s quote, we hire lawyers and accountants to shield us from taxes, and we join states as protection from each other – both other individuals, other corporations, and other states. Should things go awry here, it could discredit the concept of states as a whole, destroying the legitimacy of every government around the world in a single blow. Once one is called into question, all even marginally similar entities fall under the microscope. That is simply the nature of power and influence.
Hannah Arendt argues that violence and power are dipoles. Power is collective belief, as you say. It is its own end. Violence is instrumental, a means to an end, a tool we resort to when power and influence fail. Violence consumes power, expends and diminishes it. But since power is relative, if the winner of the violent contest has diminished the enemy's power more than their own then they come out ahead in relative terms. Power is an end, violence is a means.
Where you offered this link to me was on WhyNotThink, and I said I would answer here. There you had said:
"I think that violence and force, as direct threats and methods of survival, are necessary underpinnings for everything else." But you don't develop that point here, or just a little bit toward the end.
I agree, that deterrence has kept major wars at bay. Deterrence was the gift of Stalin, when they tested the hydrogen bomb in 1954, (after his death). I believe that there are many declassified documents that prove the plan was to "nuke" Russia. (Would there have been a nuclear winter)?
Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Syria have all been devastated, because they had no deterrence, while North Korea is untouched.
People love the Von Clausewitz quote that War is the continuation of Politics by another means. So maybe influence and raw power are the same, but just on different ends of a sliding scale. You say the willingness and ability to use violence to get what you want may be a shared belief; but isn't that based on the demonstrated other instances where they devastated some weaker county?
Influence is not just charisma, good looks nor an appeal to similarly held morals. All parties act on their immediate needs and interests. For instance: export trade is extremely good because it makes for full employment, and eliminates excess inventories. Therefore America stayed out of WWI and WWII until the last minute. Was that because they couldn't make up their mind who was "morally correct"? Not hardly. They were selling munitions and supplies to both sides of the conflict for as long as they could.
They finally had to get in the war, because if you're not in the war, you don't control the peace. All peace treaties were immensely favorable for America. Furthermore they plundered lands on all continents, and made the beleaguered populations finally pay for every bit of reconstruction. But the best part was most all industry in the world was destroyed, accept the American, that remained untouched. Therefore in the rebuilding process, most all nations became more and more dependent on American industry and American finance for the greater part of their economic turnover. And that is where they stand today.
SO INFLUENCE turns out to be that since 30% of your economy is dependent on the US, if you don't do what we say we'll take you off of the most-favored-nation status, or Tariff your goods. We'll put a major dent in your economy. Let's see if your electorate will accept that? You'll be out of power. In my opinion, that is the sum and total of influence.
You said: "Direct contests of power and strength between combatants quickly force all others to reveal their hands as well. The neutral attempt to play both sides off against one another or ally as they see fit." I am not so sure about that.
I think we are back to "Influence" from the above. If I control 30% (or more) of your economy, (and I issue the dollars that you are used to using), then these things can't be changed overnight. Only Russia has ever done it. (Maybe Iran to a lesser extent or Cuba). You are going to have to dance on the fence, or cross over into our yard. There used to be a large non-aligned nations pact. But that is no longer allowed. In certain strategic areas, like Turkey or India, they have to make allowances, in the hopes that they can butt up against China.
You said: and we join states as protection from each other – both other individuals, other corporations, and other states. I honestly think that alliances are also a case of trade payoffs. How is Finland more secure than they were as a neutral country? But they are going to get huge money for allowing military bases on their northern shore, to block Russia in the Arctic.
_____________
A few other points:
"Violence always carries the cost of the endeavor and the risk of injury and death". Except when the main actor is a proxy, and the sponsor is rarely at risk, and almost never prosecuted nor brought to justice. The cost in dollars? There seems to be no shortage or no end to dollars.
Bidding wars do happen: What year was it when Saudi Arabia and America over produced oil in order to drive the price down and bankrupt Russia?
I agree when you say rather than you-controlling-power; power-controls-you. But that is the whole scheme of power among adversaries, and its back and forth application over even centuries. It's perhaps why genocide was often practiced by the ancients, to put a stop to it.
All nations in all regions have different interests. Even the 50 states of the US have very different interests. A so-called "world-government" will surly and only consider the interests of the hegemony. Call all the rest the vassals, or really they're the slaves. it's existential.
.