The Cooperative Power of Nonviolence

The debate that has been going on, since the October actions at Nurrungar,
about secrecy vs openness, honesty vs dishonesty, abuse vs respect and so
forth, has brought into focus some fundamental disagreements about what is
social power and how is the best way to use it. 

Most of us are very comfortable with the non-cooperation or competitve part of
the power model discussed in this article (see illustration entitled "How
Power Works!) but have not learned to think clearly about its cooperative
aspects. 

In essence this means that we make reasonably good progress as long as we are
on familiar competitive or non-cooperative ground but when it comes time to
cooperate, we simply don't know how to do it.  This is evident, for example,
in the eastern block countries where "nonviolent revolutions" have recently
occurred.  Non-cooperation is credited with getting the new leaders into power
but (I believe) the cooperative know-how to proceed from there is limited.  

Part of the reason for this is that the tremendous amount of cooperation (that
we mostly accept as common place and unimportant) required to carry off the
non-cooperation has been given little credit and largely, by us and the media,
written out of history.  

There are three major and fundamental problems that have brought on this
crisis.  First, there is general acceptance of a definition of power that is
superficial and incomplete.  Second, this inadequate understanding gets in the
way of developing skills that are necessary to effectively apply power at a
grassroots level.  Third, people are good at competing but do not generally
know how to cooperate.  The purpose of this paper is to bring these problems
into focus and propose a model of facilitation of nonviolence networks that
will be helpful in dealing with the crisis.

Power
Behavioral scientists, philosphers, political scientists, business people and
most others define power as "the ability of one party to cause a second party
to do something they would not otherwise do".  This definition has led to a
popular misunderstanding because it is partly about how power is applied
rather than what it  is.  It describes two parties in competition but does not
account for the cooperation that is common in modern society.

This can be cleared up by separating "What is power?" from "How is power
applied?"  What it is, can be simplified to "the ability to influence a
situation".  How it is applied, then, can be represented on a continuous
scale.  A familiar example of such a scale is one where the extremes are black
and white and all shades of grey exist in between.  The extremes of this power
scale, then, are competitive and cooperative power with all the possible
combinations of the two in between.  These extremes can be expressed in the
following way.

Competitive application of power exists where one party attempts to use their
power to control or dominate the other by limiting the choices of the other.  

Cooperative application of power exists where both parties attempt to use
their power in ways that do not limit the choices of the other.

Skills
Even though the literature does not directly refer to power as defined above,
there are clear indications that many people are aware of the need for a more
complete understanding.  Since the 1950s, there has been an increased focus on
cooperative group dynamics such as facilitation and consensus decision-making.
Numerous authors and specialized groups have worked to develop, understand and
promote this cooperative approach to group dynamics.

Also there is a growing distinction between competitive and cooperative power
environments.  People usually exercise their power of choice within the
framework of a structured hierarchy or in informal social groups that tend to
form networks based on common interests. Whereas hierarchies depend on
management, networks are made more effective by facilitation which allows
separate groups to keep their identity and autonomy. While hierarchies have
refined methods of applying power competitively, networks have evolved as a
means of applying power more cooperatively.  The traditional widespread
competitive application of power has historic precedents too numerous to
count.  The hierarchy evolved as the ideal structure for such an application
and requires strong control-oriented management to make it operate at peak
efficiency.  Specific examples of effective network facilitation are not well
documented but the network facilitation efforts of Peace Movement Aotearoa in
New Zealand provides an example that played a significant role in the
achievement of the legislated nuclear-free policy.

Cooperation
The above observations and conclusions bring into focus the possibility of
significantly increasing the effectiveness of existing social networks through
the application of cooperative power within groups and between groups that
make up a network.  To put it more directly, people need to learn how to
cooperate with each other on an individual level, within groups and between
groups.  

The first step to achieving such goals is to develop a complete understanding
of power and how it works in the exchange process that occurs when people and
groups attempt to relate to each other.  This can be done through discussions,
workshops or seminars on the topic of cooperative power.

The second step is to apply that understanding to the various activities or
functions that commonly occur when people relate to each other or when people
work together within a group or organization.  For example, it is important to
recognize the difference between a competitor and a cooperator.  The
competitor treats the other party as a rival, trying to achieve their goal at
the expense of the other's goal.  A cooperator treats the other party as an
equal and looks for ways to achieve their own goal as well as the other's
goal.  This can also be done through discussions, workshops or seminars on the
topic of cooperative power, but contrived practice, like role plays, is needed
because most people automatically respond competitively, especially in
difficult situations.  

The third step is to create a means of facilitating the various groups or
organizations that make up a network.  Attempts to manage networks is not
likely to succeed because, by definition, management involves control which
usually interferes with identity, autonomy and, often, dignity.  A suggestion
for which there are both business and social change precedents is to form a
self supporting, neutral and objective facilitation group composed of talented
individuals from the various organizations involved, who are instructed by
their organization as follows:  
(a) not to represent the interest of their organization  
(b) to facilitate communication between all groups objectively  
(c) to take great care not to try to influence the decision-making processes
of other        	organizations 
(d) to take great care not to interfere with the identity or autonomy of other
organizations                                                                 
(e) to report back information as accurately and objectively as possible  
(f) make no attempt to solicit resources for any reason whatsoever (all
negotiations     about 	 resources or financial support should be carried out
by the groups themselves as a separate function).
  
There is a fundamental assumption that the person from a particular
organization would have the authority to communicate information to all
relevant administrative levels or individuals in their organization.  Also,
precautions are needed to avoid the perception or the reality that the
facilitation group, by virtue of its longevity or its control of information,
has become powerful and influential. 

Conclusion
There is an incomplete perception of power that has left most people unable to
understand cooperative power and its potential.  This misunderstanding has
resulted in the use of inappropriate skills in situations where the
cooperative application of power is more relevant.  These factors have
combined to produce a situation where most people and organizations do not
know how to cooperate even when they want to.

These problems can be dealt with by clearly differentiating between what power
actually is and how it is applied.  Power has been defined simply as the
ability to influence a situation allowing power to be applied either
competitively or cooperatively.  This more complete understanding can be
applied to the relationships between people within an organization, to the
various processes and activities that go on within an organization, and to the
relationships between the groups or organizations that make up a social or
business network.  There are precedents that suggest that the latter can be
best dealt with by forming a separate neutral group to facilitate the network.

Jerry D. Smith