Originally published on Jan 29, 2023
Because individual and collective progress necessitates cooperation and communication between individuals, interpersonal skills that can facilitate effective communication became one of the essential skills of a flourishing human society. From negotiation, leadership, to lobbying, the art of how to manage relationships have been greatly discussed and highly sought after. There is a prolific selection of books on this topic and I’m sure most of us have seen a gazillion blog posts about psychology, about sociology, and about how to deal with people. Here are some more thoughts.
I see human interaction and communication to be similar to business transactions: there is always something being transacted between parties. While business transactions involve goods, services, and money, the substance that communication mostly transact are ideas and thoughts. But in between the transaction of ideas and thoughts, there is another substance that the ship of communication also carries. It is what I describe as “social power”.
Defining the terms
Social power is the thing that we lose when someone is being patronizing to us or pointing out our imperfections but gained when we are complimented and appreciated. We are naturally upset by the loss of social power and elated by the accumulation of it. Appropriate interpersonal skills are often associated with a skillful management of this social power in relationships, while many unlikable personalities, such as impetuousness and rudeness, are often associated with an ignorance of the nuances of social power dynamics. While social power is desirable, the key is about understanding and maintaining the nuanced balance. There is a balanced social power dynamic when our intuition tells us: maybe don’t push the joke too far; because it will disturb the balance. Similarly, when we feel that there is an imbalance, we may be prompted to use rhetoric to restore the balance. The balance of social power is flexible, and we have a different social power dynamic with each and every one of our relationships. Every relationship begins with its own balance of social power, based on social status and perceived social status, but can be later changed through the use of rhetoric.
Social status is more tangible and measurable than social power. It is determined by immediately observable things, such as education, family background, and wealth. Perceived social status, however, is a value determined by other parties in our relationships and it is the sum of our real social status and our perceived likableness. Apart from our education and wealth, perceived social status also includes characteristics such as personal values, kindness, and how easy they are to interact with. Consider our social status to be an objective understanding, while perceived social status is the other party’s subjective understanding of us. A bachelor’s degree in a prestigious school entails objectively high social status, but, to those who either doesn’t understand its prestigiousness or doesn’t place a high social value on higher education, objective social status may not translate to a perceived social status in a relationship. Social status describes one’s status in society and perceived social status is one’s status within a relationship or interaction.
There are two other terms that I use frequently in my discussion: relationship and interaction. We only have one relationship with another party (self, others, or group), but we can have multiple interactions within a relationship. An entire hour-long meeting can be one interaction, or a smaller side discussion within a meeting can also be an interaction.
About Rhetoric
What can change the social power dynamic in an interaction? Anything that expresses opinion can change that dynamic. This could be one’s tone and attitude, choice of words, body language, or anything that can convey opinion. I think of these forms of opinion expression as “rhetoric” — the perspective we choose to express an idea. It reflects our opinions, beliefs, and values. When we say: “I said something I didn’t mean”, it doesn’t mean that we used the wrong words, but that our words don’t reflect our intention. The difference between the two is rhetoric. It is related, but not correlated, to our intention or the specific words we used. To others, it is the attitude and opinion that we express. To ourselves, it is how we choose to express our ideas. The effect of our rhetoric reflects our social abilities; a skillful management of relationships and interactions are based on a skillful application of rhetoric.
Because rhetoric is ultimately a perspective, it is not absolute. Perspective, as I discussed in my article “Differences in Perspectives”, is a particular interpretation of an experience. We all have a perspective of our own, but that perspective does not necessarily have to be the perspective we choose to express ourselves in.
For example, my mother has terrible special awareness, so her driving is particularly concerning when she changes lanes or park. Personally, I consider social awareness to be an essential skill of a good driver, so I often feel very frustrated when she drives. The result of this combination of reality and interpretation is my perspective that I think she unsuitable for driving and I hate being in her car. This perspective is my “truth” because it is exactly that I think and feel. When discussing my mom’s driving, I can express exactly what my perspective is: “mom, you are a terrible driver.” Or I can apply rhetoric on this perspective and change my way of expression: “mom, I think you should be chauffeured around.” Both of these statements express the same idea, yet rhetoric changes the way of expression and delivers drastically different results.
In communication, many people feel an obligation to a particular perspective and rhetoric of their own. They believe that this perspective reflects their principles, which they understand as their “truth”, and cannot be compromised. But we must remind ourselves that conforming to a particular perspective, no matter how righteous we deem it, only limits our ability to connect with others.
Communication, as I discussed in difference in perspectives, is about the reconciliation of different perspectives. If the perspectives between you and others cannot intersect at some point, then conflict, ineffective communication, or misunderstanding could occur. Adamantly limiting your deviation from your own perspective is nonetheless a rejection of the other party’s perspective. Sometimes we are so focused are expressing exactly how we feel (loyalty to and working for our perspective) that we jeopardize the interactions and relationships we have. Only through taking control of our rhetoric can we begin to be loyal to our relationship instead.
Ultimately, the effects of our rhetoric can lead to different social power dynamics. A fluid rhetoric can focus on initiating positive changes in the social power dynamic, while a rigid rhetoric could lead to negative changes.
How the balance of social power forms
Every relationship and interaction begin with all parties conducting their own estimate of the other party’s social status, relative to their own. This perceived social status is based on the real and objective social status; this process is merely a conversion of a value, not a recreation. Once a perceived social status is produced, the initial social power balance is created and the rhetoric and tone of the interaction is determined. For example, my interaction with a professor begins with my understanding that his social status is higher relative to mine, so I determine that I should converse with a tone of reverence. It is important to note that one’s behavior also contributes to perceived social power. With the professor’s real social status is constant, my perception of him could lower if he dresses and talks incredibly casually.
If both perceive each other’s perceived social status to be similar, then this this initial balance may be a place of equilibrium. But if there are differences between two perceived social status, then this initial balance may be in a volatile state and may be conducive to conflicts or confrontations. If my professor disagrees with my perception that he has more social status than I do, and thinks that students are on the same level as he is, a difference between two perceived social status appears. Seeing that I am being over polite, my professor may ask me to relax and consider him more of an equal. Then, a new balance of social power is established, my tone of reverence decreases. After this initial balance is formed, rhetoric is mostly employed to change that dynamic.
Below are some of my specific observations of social power dynamics.
About the social power dynamic
1. Social power dynamic exists across all types of relationships where all parties are actively participating in the managing of social power: self — self, self — others, and self — group. If the relationship is self — non-participating actor (a tree), I would argue that the social dynamic that exist between them reflects the self — self relationship.
2. No matter the interaction, varying amount of social power is always transacted. While not every interaction is about social power, every interaction can convey a change in social power. For example, my class presentation is not intended to delivery anything other than information, but, if it were delivered in a patronizing attitude, social power can be taken away from the audience and they would all hate me. However, some interactions, such as negotiations or lobbying, can be all about the transaction of social power. In our daily interaction, we generally focus less on changing the distribution of social power, but more on maintaining a balanced and friendly dynamic.
3. Any party in the interaction could change the distribution of social power. All active relationship requires the active participation of all parties, and it is this participation that grants all parties the privilege to change the social power distribution. Consider an active relationship to be a social contract between all parties. This contract grants all parties the privilege to change the balance of social power, but all parties are under the obligation of maintaining a well-suited balance. Conflicts can arise when one party, intentionally or unintentionally, abuses that power and ignores that obligation. An example of an abuse is when someone makes an unwarranted mean comment out of nowhere.
4. How one changes social power can change their perceived social status. As mentioned, the control of rhetoric reflects capacity to manage relationships. Because interaction is a process of learning about each other, perceived social status can change, mostly in small increments, as the interaction continues and more information about each party is revealed.
5. There are two fundamental ways this power can be transacted between parties: recognition, where social power is “given”, or rejection, where power is “taken”. In recognition, the recognizer is aligning their values with those they are recognizing, and ultimately agreeing with the values of their perspective. A rejection, on the other hand, is a disagreement on the values of the other party. Compliments, agreements, support, and sympathy are examples of recognition, while criticism, questioning, and mocking are examples of rejection. The more support and agreement our perspective can attract, the more social power we have. After a balance of social power is established, the dynamic is mostly changed through rhetoric.
6. Magnitudes of change: permanent or temporary. Change in social power can occur during an interaction, but depending on its effect, it may have a temporary change that only remains in effect during that particular interaction, or a permanent change that extends into the relationship and remains in effect at the next interaction.
7. The change in social power is a transaction that is only effective when backed by mutual honesty and social credit within the relationship. From the receiver’s perspective, a change in social power can only be registered, or accepted, when the receiver already recognizes the social influence of the initiator. The receiver recognizes the social influence of the initiator because their relationship has established mutual honesty. It is this honesty that affords the initiator the social credit to exert social influence on the receiver. An insult from a stranger inflicts less harm on us than an insult from our friend because the stranger has not established a mutual honesty with us and, thus, does not have social credit with us. However, if our friend has a consistent history of dishonesty, then they have less social credit, and their insult would correspondingly have less effect on us. Similarly, compliments are more impactful when the initiator has credited social influence.
8. There are two types of social power imbalances. Firstly, our interaction with a superior has an imbalance introduced by differences in perceived social status. This imbalance is formed naturally, thus it doesn’t necessarily need to be addressed and it could remain unchanged throughout the entire interaction. Secondly, while our relationships with our peers, friends, and acquaintances don’t have a difference in perceived social status, an imbalance in our interactions can be introduced by rhetoric (there existed a balanced dynamic, but a recognition or a rejection disturbs the balance). This imbalance is produced artificially through the use of rhetoric; thus, it is unnatural. While natural imbalances are accepted by both parties, unnatural imbalance can lead to one party’s discomfort.
9. The more perceived social status you have, the more effective you are at changing the distribution of social power. While all involved parties can alter the dynamic, social status can enhance a party’s ability to change the balance. This is because, even without an established mutual honesty and social credit in the relationship, perceived higher social status automatically grants social influence.
10. A decrease in the difference in social power, or a balanced social power dynamic, is conducive to a healthy relationship, while an increase in the difference in social power may led to discomfort or conflict. A loss in social power is not necessarily undesirable. If a self-induced loss in social power (as seen in scenario 1) leads to a more balanced social power dynamic, then this loss improves one’s perceived social status. In scenario 1, while the professor initiated a change in social power relatively lowered his social power, this act is often interpreted as generosity and kindness — qualities that ultimately enhance his perceived social status.
How does the dynamic change?
If there are no disturbances to a balanced dynamic or a natural imbalance, then the interaction sees no change; but if a change is initiated, the dynamic could change. Here, I examine six possibilities of change. The initiator is the party introducing a change through the use of rhetoric. I will consider how the change impacts the initiator’s social power balance, but I will also consider the real-world consequences of such changes by examining the emotional impact on the receiver.
At the beginning of the interaction, the initiator can either have a higher, lower, or equal perceived social status than the receiver, and the initiator can either introduce a negative or positive change in social power. The results of these scenarios are dependent on the response of the receiver, but I will discuss these results from the perspective of the initiator. I will use my interaction with my professor as examples; here, my professor has higher social power than I do.
It must be noted that it is assumed in these scenarios that both the receiver and the initiator have the same perception of each other and themselves. My professor understands their relative higher social power, and so do I.
Scenario 1 (Higher-Positive)
Effect on SP: Initiator with higher social power initiates a positive change. When my professor asks me to converse with him as equals, he is recognizing my value as an equal to him. This recognition reduces the difference between the perceived social status of receiver and the initiator, from both perspectives. This reduction in difference is an absolute gain on the receiver’s side and a relative loss on the initiator’s side.
Emotional effect on receiver: the receiver will appreciate this positive expression by the initiator. Because the initiator had more social power, which is interpreted as more social credit to the receiver, any expression of recognition not only is less expected, but also holds more impact on the receiver.
Scenario 2 (Lower-Positive)
Effect on SP: Initiator with lower social power initiates a positive change. During our conversation about research, I offer a compliment and say that I find his research to be very pioneering. This recognition demonstrates to my professor that I, as a student, are capable of appreciating their work, thus I am more aligned with their value. This reduces the difference in perceived social status. This change occurs without an absolute loss on the receiver yet reduces the difference between our social power; this change can be understood as an absolute gain on the initiator’s side and a relative loss on the receiver’s side.
Emotional effect on receiver: the receiver will also appreciate this positive expression, but, because the roles are a reverse of scenario 1, this gesture by the initiator holds less impact.
Scenario 3 (Higher-Negative)
Effect on SP: Initiator with higher social power initiates a negative change. Suppose I present my own research project to my professor, but their immediate response is that it lacks originality. This rejection of my work is a rejection of my status, so my social power is reduced involuntarily. In this scenario, the receiver with lower social power must accept this rejection; if the receiver can choose to disregard this rejection, then the receiver doesn’t really consider the other party to have higher social power, which is not being described by this scenario. To the initiator, there is no absolute change in their social power value, but it is a relative increase.
Emotional effect on receiver: because the initiator holds more social power and has significant social credit, this negative expression will have a strong negative impact on the receiver.
Scenario 4 (Lower-Negative)
Effect on SP: Initiator with lower social power initiates a negative change. Suppose I question the value of my professor’s research project. Once my rejection of their status is presented, there are two possibilities. If my professor accepts my rejection, then they are recognizing my capacity to understand them and the difference in social power is reduced. This increase in social power difference is an involuntary absolute loss for the receiver and a relative gain for the initiator. If my professor rejects my rejection, then they are questioning my capacity to understand them and the difference in social power may increase. This increase in social power difference is an absolute loss for the initiator and a relative gain for the receiver.
Emotional effect on receiver: the initiator here has lower social power, meaning their opinion has less negative impact.
Below are the last two scenarios in which the interaction begins with a balanced social power dynamic between two parties. These balanced dynamics are the most pervasive in our lives, as it describes our interaction with friends, peers, and acquaintances. Suppose that in these two examples my friend and I are discussing his choice of outfit for the day.
Scenario 5 (Equal-Positive)
Effect on SP: Initiator with equal social power initiates a positive change. Suppose when my friend asks for my opinion on a new shirt he just bought and I express to him that not only is the shirt a great color, but it is also very reasonably priced, considering the materials. Here, I am recognizing his choice.
Emotional effect on receiver: strong to weak positive, depending on the effect of my expression.
Scenario 6 (Equal-Negative)
Effect on SP: Initiator with equal social power initiates a negative change. Instead of agreeing his choice, suppose that I express to him that not only is the shirt an ugly and old style, but it also has terrible value. Here, I am rejection his choice.
Emotional effect on receiver: weak negative to strong negative, depending on the effect of my expression.
A special note about self-deprecation
My understanding of social power is not pioneering. Most of us have a very concrete intuition of how this dynamic works, but, while a more mature understanding will see that it’s about balancing the dynamic, a less mature understanding might consider the goal of social interaction to be “giving” as much social power to the other side as possible. In those cases, the initiator will not only recognize the values of the receiver, but they will emphasize the value of the receiver by self-deprecation. Following the previous example in scenario 5, I could further express that his sense of style is so much better than mine and that I suck at dressing well.
This expression could achieve the effect of emphasizing the success and value of my friend, but I would argue that not only can self-deprecation yield minimal results, but it’s effect could very easily become negative. This is because the very nature of compassion prohibits us from profiting, or feeling good, from the tragedy of others. A strong use of self-deprecation may leave the other party in a state of awkwardness or a burden of comforting you. Overall, a mild use of self-deprecation could express to the other party your appreciation of their success, but I would discourage it entirely.
This concludes my thoughts on social power and rhetoric. However, this is by no means a complete and perfect study of human interactions. My analysis originated purely from my own observations of daily interactions with others and, as much as I hope my observations are universally true, I don’t claim a perfect representation of others’ experience.
Comments