Battlecast

Editor’s note: In this excerpt from the book What is Power? Luke Wolf reviews the conceptual definitions of power in Hindi, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Urdu, Russian, and Japanese. Together, the languages considered in this article embrace more than 3,454,545,200 speakers, outnumbering English speakers by 1,998,096,880 individuals. The essay seeks to supplement and extend our understanding of the global conception of power. 

The Language of Power

Power is the capacity to nullify the enemy.

For decades, scholars have sought to define power (Baldwin, 2016; Dahl, 1963; French, 1956; Friedkin, 1986; Lohausen, 1985; Lukes, 2005; Nye, 2011; Morriss, 1987; Weber, 2018). Unfortunately, the vast majority of academics have focused narrowly on English sources, ignoring important work in non-English languages while also largely ignoring the usage and definitions of power in non-English languages (French, 1956; Nye, 2011). For example, Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schneck, and Pennings (1971) cite one non-English source out of fifty-one references in their article on administrative power. The one non-English source the authors did cite was German – thus, demonstrating a bias towards Western languages that pervades the literature on the idea of power, as if the ideas and definitions of power developed and utilized by the rest of the world are so unimportant they are not even mentioned, let alone developed and incorporated into a definition of power that is universally applicable. The bias towards Western languages in general and English in particular is widespread in the literature on power, pointing towards an overwhelming prejudice against non-English speaking languages and lived-experiences (Bachrach & Baratz, 1962; Baldwin, 2016; Bierstedt, 1959; Dahl, 1957; Dahl 1963, Giddens, 1979; McLachlan, 1981; Nye, 2011). Consider an example: Nye, in his book The Future of Power, cites very few non-English, let alone non-Western sources – and this from a book that purports to“examine what it means to be powerful in the twenty-first century” (Nye, 2011, back cover). This bias has obfuscated and limited the conceptual understanding of power in the English-speaking world. 

Consider another instance. In his overview of the concept of power, Nye (2011), like many other scholars, notes that power “is a contested concept” (p. 5). He goes on to ground his understanding of power in the “commensense place to start … the dictionary” (p. 6). Notice Nye’s nonchalant (one might say xenophobic) bias toward the English language – a language spoken by approximately 18.5 percent of the world’s population – in other words, a minority of humanity (Zeidan, 2023). Nye consequently defines power as “the capacity to do things and in social situations to affect others to get the outcomes we want. Some people call this influence, and distinguish power from influence, but that is confusing because the (English! -L.W.) dictionary defines the two terms as interchangeable” (p. 6). As I demonstrate in this article, other, widely-spoken languages, make a clear distinction between power and influence, lending credence to my argument that influence and power exist on a spectrum ranging from absolute influence to absolute power, with the vast majority of actions mixing both influence and power. Second, as Morriss convincingly argues (1987), even in English there is a clear conceptual difference between power and influence. Let me be clear: power and influence are distinct.

The concept of a spectrum of power can clearly be seen in the idea of a “threat.” I define the term “threat” as “an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). The idea of a threat encompasses both influence and power, the idea is situated toward the middle of the spectrum of action. A threat is not actual physical violence or restraint. Yet, a threat is not wholly persuasion – the clear element of persuasion in a threat is backed up by the credible ability to inflict violence. Few people are intimidated by a threat which is issued from a weak actor, but a credible threat, from a strong actor, is taken seriously. 

Let’s return to Nye’s (2011) conception of power. Morriss (1987) has exhaustively dealt with the English-language conception of power in his book Power: A philosophical analysis where he reached conclusions diametrically opposed to Nye’s conception of power, even when only narrowing the concept of power to its English usage. First, Morriss notes the fact that common people have an understanding of power quite adequate for their lived experience “which is perfectly sufficient for pub conversations” (1987, p. 1). Second, an analysis of the definitions of the two concepts demonstrates both overlap and distinction between the two terms. Morriss, in contradistinction to Nye (2011), believes a key problem with social science scholarship is that scholars collapse the concepts of power and influence, making them “near-synonyms” (p. 8).  Morriss’s exhaustive discussion of the concepts of power and influence in the English language is excellent and I quote it at length:

Power and influence started out in their linguistic life as expressions of completely different ideas. But the meanings of words change, and maybe ‘power’ and ‘influence’ are now indistinguishable. That this is not the case is easily shown by looking at the entries in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the most authoritative source of twentieth-century linguistic usage. The Oxford English Dictionary confirms the suspicion that the meanings of the words have changed so that there is now a considerable amount of overlap (or a spectrum -L.W.), but demonstrates conclusively that there also remain several differences. The best way of showing the range of meanings of the words is by quoting all the non-obsolete entries in the Oxford English Dictionary. 

Influence (noun)

2. (Specifically in Astrology) The supposed flowing from the stars or heavens of an ethereal fluid acting upon the character and destiny of men, and affecting sublunary things generally. In later times gradually viewed less literally, as an exercise of power or ‘virtue’, or of an occult force, and in late use chiefly a poetical or humorous reflex of earlier notions. 

b. (transferred sense) The exercise of personal power by human beings, figured as something of the same nature as astral influence. (Now only poetic). 

4. The exertion of action of which the operation is unseen or insensible (or perceptible only in its effects), by one person or thing upon another; the action thus exercised. 

5. The capacity or faculty of producing effects by insensible of invisible means, without the employment of material force, or the exercise of formal authority; ascendancy of a person or social group; moral power over or with a person; ascendancy, sway, control, or authority, not formally or overtly expressed. 

6. A thing (or person) that exercises action or power of a non-material or unexpressed kind. 

Influence (verb)

1. (transitive) To exert influence upon, to affect by influence. 

a. To affect the mind or action of; to move or induce by influence; sometimes especially to move by improper or undue influence.

b. To affect the condition of, to have an effect. 

Power (noun)

1. Ability to do or effect something or anything, or to act upon a person or thing.

2. Ability to act or affect something strongly; physical or mental strength; might; vigour, energy; force of character; telling force, effect. 

b. Political or national strength. 

1. Of inanimate things: Active property; capacity of producing some effect; the active principle of a herb, etc.

2. Possession of control or command over others; dominion, rule; government, domination, sway, command; control, influence, authority. Often followed by over. 

b. Authority given or committed; hence, sometimes, liberty of permission to act. 

d. Personal social ascendancy, influence.

e. Political ascendancy or influence in the government of a country or state. 

1. Legal ability, capacity, or authority to act; especially delegated authority; authorization, commission, faculty; specifically legal authority vested in a  person or persons in a particular capacity. 

2. One who or that which is possessed of or exercises power, influence, or government; an influential or governing person, body or thing; in early use, one in authority, a ruler, governor. 

b. In late use, a state or nation regarded from the point of view of its international authority or influence.  

That there is an overlap, an area of synonymity, is clear: we only have to compare Influence (definition 5) with Power (definition 4) to see that. But that there is not complete synonymity should also be clear (pp. 9-10). 

As Morriss suggests, we can see the clear distinction between the concepts of power and influence by substituting them in statements. Consider the statement: “A psychopath may have the power to kill and destroy random strangers” (Nye, 2011, p. 7). By substituting the word “influence” in the first clause of the sentence, we can see the distinction inherent in the two concepts: “A psychopath may have the influence to kill and destroy random strangers.” The word influence doesn’t make sense in this sentence – because influence doesn’t kill anyone. Power is coercive; influence is suggestive. The two concepts meet in the middle of the action spectrum (see figure 1.1), but at the extremes of absolute power and absolute influence, the concepts are distinct. 

Consider another example. “The teenage boy was influenced by a national retailer to purchase a shirt to attract a girl” (this scenario is from Nye, 2011, p. 13). Now let’s substitute the concept of “power” instead of “influence.” I will use the verb “force” as a substitute for the term “power” because power is primarily a noun in the English language (Morriss, 1987, p. 9) and force, thought distinct from power, which is a relational concept, is often associated with power (Baldwin, 2016, p.2; Lohausen, 1985, p. 24).  “The teenage boy was forced by a national retailer to purchase a shirt to attract a girl.” As is clear to any disinterested reader, the term “forced” completely changes the meaning of the sentence. In the first statement, the teen is persuaded – or seduced – to buy the shirt. In the second statement, the teen is compelled to purchase the shirt. The essence of the difference between power and influence is coercion. 

The idea of power as utilized in common speech, by everyday people across the world, is often more useful for understanding the concept of power than is formal academic work (McLachlan, 1981; Morriss, 1987). In his detailed analysis of the concept of power in English linguistics, Morriss (1987) notes the importance of everyday conceptions of power. He writes: 

We all have an intuitive understanding of the term (power) …. But the rapidly growing mountain (emphasis L.W.) of literature on the concept of power indicates that this understanding is not considered adequate for academic discourse… Ordinary men and women frequently know more than academics about the meaning of ‘power.’ (pp. 1; 2).

Morriss makes the case that much of the voluminous academic work on power is biased and inutile – it helps us understand little regarding the theory of power, while common speech is actually more useful for scholars who want to grasp the concept of power. 

Even as McLachlan (1981) argues for the use of “common” definitions of power in social sciences, he doesn’t cite a single non-English source to make his argument. Fortunately, a small number of scholars have begun to address the English-bias in modern social science literature regarding power (Lukes, 2005, pp.73-73; Morriss, 1987). However, these authors limit their discussion of power to Western languages. Consequently, a gap exists in the literature on power regarding the definition of power in non-Western languages. This article aims to fill that gap. 

The Concept of Power Literature Review

While the concept of power and its common, everyday usage, has been widely studied in the English language, little research has studied the concept of power in non-English languages (Lukes, 2005; Morriss, 1987). While some work has been done on the idea of power in Western languages, even some European-derived languages, such as Spanish and Portuguese, have been ignored by English-writing scholars (Lukes, 2005). In addition, I am aware of no studies in the English language that have analyzed the concept of power in non-Western languages.

Morriss (1987) demonstrates the origins of the concepts of power and influence in many Indo-European languages:

A difference between the words power and influence is shown by their derivations. ‘Power’ came from the Latin potere, which meant “to be able.” ‘Influence,’ however, derived from the Latin influere, “to flow in,” and referred to an astrological belief that a substance emanated from the stars and flowed into people in the sublunary world, changing their behavior or at least affecting them in some way. Hence ‘under the influence,’ and also ‘influenza.’

So ‘power’ and ‘influence’ started out in their linguistic life as expressions of completely different ideas: for being able and being affected by occult fluids are not exactly similar (p. 9). 

Consequently, in many languages rooted in Latin, power and influence began as two distinct concepts. The concrete idea of power connoted “force” or “ability.” The gaseous idea of influence connoted “affect.” Moreover, note Morriss’s biased use of language. He writes: “‘power’ and ‘influence’ started out in their linguistic life as expressions of completely different ideas.” (1987, p. 9). The truth is, power and influence started out their linguistic life in Latin only “as expressions of completely different ideas.” Other language families have independent linguistic histories, a truth Morriss, and the vast majority of Western social scientists fail to even mention, let alone account for! Here is the bias and cultural supremacy endemic to humanist social thought. At bottom, progressive ideas regarding power are provincial. 

An important digression should be taken here. According to progressive thinking, men are basically good because they possess reason; they are rational. This makes anyone whose reason is impaired an animal – and outside humanity. Thus, anything can be done to them. This is clear in the case of abortion – the fetus, while obviously alive, is not rational and therefore not human. The obvious extension of this idea has terrible implications for the mentally impaired. Moreover, if it could be shown that some populations were less intelligent, they also would be considered outside humanity and thus, animals. This is an ethical conception I completely reject. In the Christian worldview, humans have innate value both because God – the all-father, commands that they have value and because humans are made in God’s image, regardless of intellectual capacity. At the root of humanism is a terrible inhumanity, an inhumanity that presents itself in the “mountains” (Morriss, 1987) of biased progressive research on the concept of power in the mainstream English-language intellectual tradition. 

Let’s return to our discussion of power. Lukes (2005) develops the idea of the concept of power by analyzing the concept’s use in other languages. 

Spinoza, writing in the Latin language, in his Tractatus Politicus distinguishes between potentia and potestas. Potentia signifies the power of things in nature, including persons, ‘to exist and act’. Potestas is used when speaking of being in the power of another (p. 73).

Unfortunately, Lukes ignores the Latin concept of influere, thus limiting the scope of his analysis. However, Lukes finds many living languages don’t make what he (what hubris!) considers an adequate distinction between the idea of power as an actor’s ability to act and a more restricted sense where power means “to have power over another or others” (p. 73). Lukes goes on to discuss, in a limited manner, the concept of power in various non-English languages:

In German, the distinction is partially caught by the distinction between Macht on the one hand, and Herrschaft on the other. In English, power straddles the distinction, as does potere in Italian (though potenza is equivalent to potentia, whereas potesta is much narrower than potestas).  Both pouvoir and puissance in French cover both senses, though only the latter normally signifies power in its proper sense as capacity, while the former tends to denote its exercise (pp. 73-74). 

Incidentally, French-speaking authors agree with Lukes’ interpretation of the use of pouvoir and puissance. Forget (2008) writes:

It is important not to confuse puissance and pouvoir. La puissance (capacity) does not come from another source other than itself, whereas pouvoir (power’s exercise) depends in its essence on its object. The man of puissance (capacity) eventually acquires le pouvoir (the exercise of power) by surplus and without necessity (he is not dependent); conversely, the man of pouvoir (power’s exercise) is necessarily determined by the puissance (capacity) that he has in himself or that he parasatizes or subverts (pp. 118-119). 

The key idea Lukes is missing is this: the capacity to not be nullified ipso facto gives one the ability to act. When we say God is all-powerful, we mean God cannot be nullified and thus he can do or stop anything he wants. The same is true for men who hold power – they have both the capacity of power “over others” and therefore “the ability to act.” The two concepts are not distinct but are intimately connected. Hence, their connection in the languages Lukes discusses.  Lukes continues his discussion: 

In Russian, according to Ledyaev,  the word vlast, normally translated as power, seems to mean potestas, since ‘it is usually used for the description of someone’s ability to control (dominate, compel, influence) others: (in Russia) power is imagined as something that is over us, that limits our freedom, creates obstacles, etc.’ (p. 74). 

This is the extent of the study in English of the idea of power in non-English languages – a completely biased account that totally ignores non-European conceptions of power used by the vast majority of people in the world. Moreover, in Russian, as Lukes remarks, power is conceptualized as almost totally distinct from influence. 

The Language of Power

In the space that follows, I analyze the concept of power as it is utilized by a plurality of non-English speakers in the world. Languages were chosen for this study based on two criteria. First, the language had not previously been analyzed in English-language social science literature. Second, chosen languages had to be one of the most widely-spoken languages in human experience. This is not to imply that smaller languages are unimportant. On the contrary, I consider all languages, both living and dead, extremely important in helping scholars identify a truly universal, human conception of power. Consequently, in this chapter the idea of power is analyzed in eight different languages: Hindi, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Urdu, Russian, and Japanese. Together, the languages considered in this article embrace more than 3,454,545,200 speakers, outnumbering English speakers by 1,998,096,880 individuals (Zaiden, 2023).

The Concept of Power in the Hindi Language

The idea of power in the Hindi language is a concept shaded with many meanings, most of which are seen in other languages. However, Hindi has a number of novel uses of the concept of power. Both the universal and particular aspects of the concept of power in the Hindi language are considered in this section. Unless otherwise noted, all citations are from McGregor (1993). 

Numerous Hindi words for power connote authority and freedom to act – implying a conception of someone without constraint. For example, अखड़ाना means authority, option, or choice, in other words, “unconstrained.” In addition, अधिकार indicates both authority, freedom of action, and possession – controlling ownership. Another word with connotations of command and authority is, इमारत a term which also means building or structure.  सलतनत, which means “sultanate,” also associates power with sovereignty and rulership. 

The most common Hindi words for power associate the concept with the idea of “holding” or “grasping.” Consider an example: the letter-grouping ऑट indicates twisting, folding, or turning, along with catching and entangling. A phrase derived from this term indicates coming under someone’s power – you are “caught” or “ensnared” by them. A caught animal cannot escape – its will doesn’t matter. The animal is a subject. 

Another power-word associated with “taking” is  पकड़ना, a word that means “grasp” or “clutch.” It also means forceful seizure and possession, including the concept of occupancy. If something is occupied and you want to take possession of the thing, it is required to remove the current occupier, in other words, to nullify them, to render them unable to stop you. Another word with implications of “grabbing” is कस. This term indicates something that “binds” or “fastens” tightly.  A secondary definition is strength or power. So the capacity to capture and bind up indicates power in Hindi linguistics.  क़ाबू and  मुट्ठी are both words which associate power with “hold” or “grasp.”  गिरफ्त means to “seize, grasp, or clutch.” The term  दबाव defines power in a similar manner but instead of “capture,” it primarily means “press” as in “oppression” and “domination.”  दबाव has implications of “pressure” and “weight.” Another relevant word in terms of “grasp” is दाँव. This word also means “ensnare” or “strike a blow.” The Hindi conception of power as “grasping” is interesting in relation to the biblical story of Samson, who cannot be nullified by anyone until he is effectively “binded,” that is nullified, in other words, rendered powerless. 

Some Hindi words have to do with attributes of strength, rather than strength itself. For instance, the term ऊँचा indicates the attribute of “tallness” or “highness.” It also indicates great talents and higher class. The word  प्रताप  defines power as “ardor, vigor, or energy.” बरबस has connotations of force – energetic force.

Of course, like most languages, Hindi has terms that define power simply as “strength.” For example, कुव्वत indicates both “strength” and “power.”  विभुता associates power with “might.”  Another example is the term ज़ोर which connotes “strength” as well as “effort” and “authority.”  One more instance of a word with attributes of “strength” and “force” is तोड़ . Interestingly, this word has to do with “breaking” and “strong force” (as in velocity). In other words, the powerful actor is able to break targets. Along the same lines, an expressive term with onomatopoeia connotations is थाप , pronounced thap, which means “to slap” but also means “authority” or “power.”  बल is associated with “strength and might” but also with “weight” and “military force.” 

Perhaps the most well-known Hindi term for power, ताक़त, or taqat, defines power in terms of not only strength, but “ability” or “capability.” In other words, taqat defines power in terms of capacity. The terms  बिरता and मक़दूर also associate power with capacity. बूता has to do with capacity, ability, and strength as does शक्ति. 

Hindi, like English, also has words that mix the concepts of influence and power. One word that does this is ज़ोर, which includes connotations of “speed.” ज़ोर, like विभव , indicates both power and wealth even though wealth, like a seductive woman, is able to be resisted by wealth’s target. However, power is not able to be resisted. I can choose not to sleep with a seductive woman but I cannot choose to not go to jail if a powerful actor puts me in jail. With the concept of influence, the targeted actor has choice. With the concept of power, the targeted actor does not have choice – he is nullified. Still, in many – but not all – languages the two concepts have become blurred, which makes sense, because actions exist on a spectrum ranging from influence to power. Another term tangentially related to influence and power is प्रभाव. This word means strength, but also “to have an effect on.” Sometimes this latter usage can mean influence but it is not the primary meaning of the term. Still another term with connotations of power and influence is बस which means both “power” and, more rarely, “influence – to have an effect on.” 

In summation, the concept of power in the Hindi language is most associated with strength and domination – it implies the ability to “grasp,” to control. A few Hindi terms blur the concept of power with influence. However, the vast majority of Hindi words associated with power have to do with strength and prowess, along with capacity and authority. By definition, the actor who cannot be nullified is ipso facto ruling, even if he chooses not to assert his dominion. If he chose to dominate, there could be none who stand in his way. Consequently, anyone who holds power holds it by the consent of the powerful, the one (or group) who is able to nullify all others. 

The Concept of Power in the Chinese Language

As we saw in the Hindi language, the Chinese language associates power with many physical attributes. Attributes associated with power in Chinese include: strength, the ability to “grasp” or “clutch,” and ability. However, Chinese has many idiosyncratic power associations which we discuss in the space that follows. All citations are from Manser et al. (2003). 

In a similar manner to Hindi, Chinese conceptions of power often associate power with “holding” or “grasping.” For instance, 秉 mean to “grasp” or “hold” but also means political power. 夺 is defined as “snatch” or “seize.” 大权 and 权力 associate power with “authority.” Here again we see the link between power and authority. If one is powerful one is automatically in authority because anyone who rules does so by the powerful actor’s permission. This is because without the most powerful actor’s tacit support, any ruler could be removed at any time. Some Chinese words associate power with force. For example, 动力 means both “power” and “force.” 当权 means “power” or to “be in power.” 

The Chinese language often associates power with other attributes or human types. For example, the term 霸 indicates “bully” and “oppressor” but also the power to dominate and “overlord.” 兵权 indicates military power – the ability to kill but not be stopped. One of the most interesting conceptions of power in any language is the Chinese word  当道. The word literally means “to block the road,” or more loosely: “to control the road” and it also means to be in power. Such imagery recalls the long history of toll roads – where power explicitly controls money by blocking roads. In this conception a person in power controls movement. The word 掌权 has similar connotations. It means “to take power” but also “to exercise control.”

Yet another idiosyncratic Chinese conception of power which is associated with destroying is 垮台. This term means “to collapse” and is also used to mean “fall from power.” In many languages, words meaning “build” are often associated with power. However, the Chinese language takes this conception further and actually associates losing power with the collapse of a building – a striking and beautiful image when one considers the actual, concrete loss of power in warfare: the destruction of Berlin, the fall of Atlanta, the absolute desolation of Carthage – “collapse” is a perfect term for a culture or a people that lose their power. 

Another imaginative Chinese conception of power has connotations of universality. The word is 雷霆 which means “thunder” or “thunderclap” while also meaning “tremendous power.” The universal nature of this understanding of power is evident from such conceptions as the Zulu abantwana bokuduma (children of thunder) and the Norse conception of Thor as the thunder God – whose hammer Mjollnir strikes with lightning and thunder. One can also witness this understanding of power by observing small children who are unused to thunder claps – it often scares them: there is nothing seductive about it – thunder is merely frightening and there can be no resistance. Echoes of this conception of power may be tenuously found in the Christian conception of the flood, when God destroyed almost all of mankind with thunder and storms; men could not even strike back as God destroyed them. Again, a similar conception is found in Tolkien’s The Silmarillion (n.d.): 

And out of the west there would be at times a great cloud in the evening, shaped as it were an eagle, with pinions spread to the north and the south; and slowly it would loom up, blotting out the sunset, and then uttermost night would fall upon Númenor. And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings, and thunder echoed between sea and cloud. 

Then men grew afraid. ‘Behold the Eagles of the Lords of the West!’ they cried. ‘The Eagles of Manwë are come upon Númenor!’ And they fell upon their faces (p. 345).

Clearly, thunder is associated with power in numerous human cultures and likely points to an almost universal association of thunder with power, just as gold is almost universally associated with wealth across many different cultures, times, and peoples (Bernstein, 2012). 

Like Hindi and many other human languages, power is commonly associated with “strength” and “might” in the Chinese language. 劲 is a term defined both as “strong” and “powerful.” 威力 is defined simply as “might.” 强国 means “strong country” or, more loosely, “power house” – a place where power accrues or is gathered. 力 is a term which means “strength, ability, and force.” Another Chinese word which translates as power is 得势. This word is defined as “to gain the upperhand,” to win or be dominant. For the Chinese language, the powerful are ipso facto the victors. 

The link between the concept of influence and power does exist in Chinese. For example, there are words which primarily mean “power” but also can be used in a secondary sense to mean “influence.” 权势 and 势力 are two such words. 势失 is a word for losing power which literally means “to lose ground” as in to be defeated on a battlefield. However, the word does have the secondary meaning of “losing influence” as in Exon Mobile 势失 to Shell Oil. 势 is word associated with both power and influence but also, interestingly, with momentum, which has obvious connotations of “force.”

Notice the disjunction between influence and power is more pronounced in the Chinese language than in English. The two ideas do mix in a few words, but most Chinese conceptions of power, like most Russian conceptions of power, involve: strength, force, tremendous power, winning, and control – in short, most Chinese word-pictures of power involve the capacity to nullify others while the powerful actor is incapable of being nullified. In other words, the powerful actor is in control. Put succinctly: he rules. 

The Concept of Power in the Japanese Language

Japanese makes an almost complete distinction between the concepts of power and influence. While the two do have a tenuous connection in Japanese linguistics, the primary understanding of both influence and power are fundamentally distinct. 

As I noted in the cases of the other languages presented in this chapter, a common attribute of power across all languages is “strength” and “might.” Japanese is no different. One of the most common meanings of power in Japanese is 力, which means “force, strength, energy, or might” A derivative of 力 is 腕力, which is defined as physical strength. Interestingly, another term for power in Japanese is 勢い. 勢い has a primary denotation of “momentum,” but it can also be defined as “force, vigor, or influence.” All Japanese citations are from Webster’s new world compact Japanese dictionary, 1983.

Power is also associated with authority in the Japanese language. 権力 means both “power” and “authority.” When combined with other terms, 権力のある takes on a primary definition of “powerful” but it can also mean “influential.”

In contrast to the concept of power, Japanese words for “influence” tend to connote “effect” or “impact.” An example of a word meaning both “influence” and “effect” is 影響. Another term for influence has unique attributes not seen in other languages. It is the word 感化 which means both “influence” but also “inspiration, stimulus, motivation, or incentive.” Clearly, 感化 has connotations of an “additive,” something that moves the will of the target but does not control it. 感化 motivates; it doesn’t dominate. 

Another uniquely Japaneses conception of influence is 反響. The term 反響 can be defined as “influence” but it also means “echo, reverberation, reaction, and reflection.” Consequently, for Japanese linguistics, an influence is an echo of an original source. We can think of a son who takes on similar characteristics to his father – he is “echoing” his father; the father has an influence on the son. 

Another word for influence is つて. つて primarily denotes a “connection.” The term can also be used to mean influence.

The Concept of Power in the Spanish Language

The Spanish language offers an interesting case study for the study of the conception of power because in Spanish, the conception of power has largely, but still not completely, merged with the idea of influence.  

Poder is the most well-known term in Spanish signifying power. While other words can be defined as “power,” poder is the quintessential term for power in Spanish. It is a term, like the word “power” in English, which has taken on the full spectrum of influence and power in its definition – and poder has taken meanings beyond what is found in the English concept “power.” Unless otherwise noted, all citations are from Jarman and Russell (1994).

Poder is both an auxiliary verb and a noun in the Spanish language. In its verb form, it has a wide-range of meanings which roughly correspond to the English “to be able,” or, more loosely “it is in my power.” Used as a verb, poder often means “capacity” or “ability.” For example, in the phrase: “hicimos todo lo que pudimos por ayudarios,” meaning “we did everything in our ability to help them,” the word “pudimos” signifies “capacity” or “ability.” It’s important to note the connection in this idea of power with the idea of freedom of movement and the idea of power ranging from kings to slaves. All humans have an innate capacity or ability to act, no matter how minuscule. In other words, almost all humans have at least a modicum of power – of capacity to nullify the enemy. Both the Spartan and American Southern fear of slave rebellion is tangible proof of this idea, as is the disarmament of the Scottish populace by the occupying English. One can see this idea in the South African passbook system where the African population was required to present a pass in order to enter and work in European areas. By taking the target’s weapons and limiting their movements, you automatically render them less capable and, therefore, less powerful. 

Another verb use of poder  “expresses the idea of permission.” In this use, the speaker often either seeks authority from or gives authority to the target of the phrase. Consider some examples. In the question ¿puedo servirme otro? (may I have another one?), the person asking the question is asking for permission. The sovereign authority who answers is the one with power. If the authority gives the power to the asker, then the asker is able to take the other item, but only if the authority grants the power. Another example is ¿puedo pasar? (may I come in?). 

A third verb meaning of poder is to express a moral right, which is clearly linked to influence. For instance, if a mother says, “clean your room, es lo menos que puedes hacer” (it’s the least you can do), she is appealing to morality in order to influence the target. The same sense is found in the use of poder to convey a reproach: ¿Cómo puedes ser tan ingrato? (How can you be so ungrateful?). Plainly, this use of poder as a moral reproach is an instance of influence (affecting change) rather than power (coercion). 

A fourth verb usage conceptualizes poder as a term of effectiveness or comparison expressed in terms of capability. An example is the phrase: “tu desprecio le puede mucho” (she’s very hurt by your bad attitude). “Tu papá no le puede al mío” (your dad ‘s not as strong as mine). You might translate this literally “your dad is less capable than mine.”

Finally, the verb poder is used to express eventuality or possibility. “Puede aparecer en cualquier momento” (he may turn up at any moment). One could render this sentence: “he has the power, or the ability, to appear in any second.” 

The Spanish use of poder as a noun also has a plethora of definitions. First, in one of its primary meanings, poder is defined both as “influence” and as “power.” Often, a valid translation of poder can use both meanings. For example, in the phrase: tiene mucho poder en el pueblo (he has a great deal of power in the village), the word “influence” can be substituted for power with equal validity. However, when the term “poder” is used in relation to government or politics, a more accurate translation is “power” instead of “influence;” this is true because the term power has connotations of compulsion whereas influence does not. In the case of a powerful private citizen in a village, the word influence is interchangeable with power. As Morriss (1987) notes, this intermingling of concepts clouds our conception of power because influence and power are not the same thing. Consider an example. There is a very rich man in a town. The rich man offers you $100,000 dollars to mow his lawn. Most people would mow the man’s lawn. This is an example of influence. However, if the same wealthy man offered you $100,000 dollars to kill a five-year-old girl, almost all normal humans would not agree. There is a limit to the wealthy man’s influence and an element of choice for the target of influence. 

This is not the case with regard to power. When armed men come and take you away and place you in prison, and you yourself are unarmed, there is nothing you can effectively do to stop them. Your choice to agree or disagree does not matter. There is very little element of choice when power is at play. Power is coercive; influence is seductive. Power is masculine; influence is feminine. 

Like many other languages, poder can often be translated as “hands” or “possession.” Consider an example. The phrase: obra en su poder la copia del acta is properly translated as “you have in your possession (poder) a copy of the minutes.” It is possible to translate poder in this sentence as “hands” or “power.” Interestingly, it is precisely in the attribute of possession, that renders “influence” an inaccurate translation of poder in this case – again pointing to the differences between influence and power. The phrase “you have in your influence a copy of the minutes” does not have the same meaning and accuracy as does the correct, power-based, translation. Poder in Spanish can also mean “control.” “Constantinopla cayó en poder de los turcos” can be translated as “Constantinople is in the control of the Turks.” To have something in your power is to control it, to own it. To have something in your influence is to entice it, to seduce it. 

Yet another meaning of poder when used as a noun is “authority” or “legitimate right.” A phrase helps illustrate this denotation: “la separación de poderes entre la Iglesia y el Estado” is properly translated as “the division of power (or authority or legitimate rights) between the Church and the State.” Interestingly, this definition of poder as “legitimate right” again points to possession and control, which is a connecting attribute across many linguistic conceptions of power in numerous languages. In the case reviewed in this paragraph, the Church and State each have their own areas of control or possession. 

Finally, poder can also be translated as “capacity” or “skill.” The term is used in this sense when it refers to energy, such as “the power of the new engine.” A similar term, poderío, means “power” or “might.”

Spanish, like the other languages reviewed in this chapter, has more than one word which means power. Another word for power in Spanish is “fuerza.” Fuerza has many meanings but all of them have to do with “strength” or “force.” Another definition of fuerza is “vigor” and “authority.” This is because if one is strong and has the capacity to nullify the enemy, one already has authority – even if it is not utilized. The capacity to nullify the target who exercises authority automatically gives one authority. That is why Frank Herbert wrote in Dune: “The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it.” 

Potencia is another Spanish term for power. It is used to connote “force” or “capacity.” The term can also mean “might” or even “prowess.” A similar term is facultad, which is defined as “capacity” or “authority.” 

The word “autoridad” relates to both influence and power. For example, autoridad can mean “authoritative power,” as in the phrase: es la máxima autoridad en el ministerio (he is the top official in the ministry). However, autoridad can also refer to expert opinion or moral authority, which is clearly a case of influence. 

Spanish, like most languages, has a dedicated word for influence: “influencia” or “influjo.” In Spanish linguistics influencia is defined as having an impact or serving (what a word!) as an example for someone or something. The word can also mean consequential people as in: tiene influencias en las altas esferas (she’s got friends in high places). The verb form of influence in Spanish is both influir and influenciar. The two verbs have the same meaning. Both verbs mean “to influence” and can be used to mean “to have an effect” or “an impact” on someone or something. 

The Concept of Power in the Arabic Language

The concept of power is clearly distinct from influence in the Arabic language. In fact, the two concepts are perhaps most separated in Arabic linguistics when compared with other languages. In Arabic, power is almost totally associated with force and strength while influence is associated with feeling and change. I examine both conceptions in this section. 

قوة  is a key Arabic word for power. The term has associations with “force” and “strength.” It also has the meaning of “might, intensity, and vigor.” The term is not associated with influence (Oxford University Press, 2010). سلطة makes a clear connection between “power” and “command.” According to سلطة, the ability to effectively command means one has power. As I have noted regarding numerous other languages, the power-term سلطة is also associated with “hands” and “weight” (Collins, 2011; Oxford University Press, 2010). 

In contrast, the term for influence is يُؤثر في. This term means to “have an effect on.” It also means “impress” (Collins, 2011; Oxford University Press, 2010). Put another way, in Arabic, when a teacher influences a student, he “leaves a mark” (يُؤثر في.) on the student. Another word whose primary definition is “side effect’ or “trace” is آثار جانبية; the term also means “influence” (Collins, 2011; Oxford University Press, 2010).  Clearly, in Arabic, influence is secondary and produces a weak effect in the target; whereas power is coercive and produces a stark effect in the target. 

The Concept of Power in the Urdu Language

Urdu, like Arabic, makes a clear and stark distinction between power and influence. Moreover, like Arabic, Urdu has few terms to describe power. In Urdu, the word for power is “طاقت” (taqat). طاقت has three main meanings. The first meaning of power in Urdu is physical strength: the capacity to perform physical tasks. The second meaning is authority or control: the ability to command or influence others. Finally, a third definition of power in Urdu is the ability to do work, to not fail (connoting an incapacity to be stopped) (Salimuddin et al, 2003).  طاقت can also mean “capability” and “electricity” or “energy” (Cambridge University Press, n.d; Shanul, 2005).  

In contrast, a term for influence is اثر کرنا which has connotations of “to affect,”  “to encourage” (as in seduction), and  “to replace a person or thing” (Shanul, 2005). The word اثر can mean “affect” or “impression” (Cambridge University Press, n.d.). Another, more idiosyncratic term for influence is متاثر کرنا which can mean both “affect” or “infect.” 

Plainly, in Urdu, as in Arabic, the conceptual distinction between power and influence is stark and prominent.

The Concept of Power in the Russian Language

Russian, like Urdu, Arabic, Japanese and Chinese, makes a salient distinction between power and influence, something already noted by Lukes (2005). Many of the Russian conceptions of power involve the idea of physically grabbing or clutching so that the idea of power in Russian is the ability to grab and hold something. For instance, берёшь means “to take” or “to seize” while a similar term, власть, can be defined as “to seize power” but also can be defined simply as “power” itself. A similar word, власти, means “authorities.” Other terms derived from the same root mean “control,” and “grip.” Unless otherwise noted, all Russian citations are from The Oxford Russian dictionary (1995). 

Another term closely related to власть is захва. Захва literally means to “capture,” and can also be translated as “to take.” A term derived from захва is захватчик; it is the Russian word for “invader.” A closely related term is захватнический which is defined simply as “aggressive.” Consequently, in Russian, power is directly associated with aggression. 

Other Russian conceptions of power include the idea of seizing. For example, the word “рука,” meaning “hand,” can be used figuratively to mean “captured” or “possessed.” As a consequence, the phrase “взять в свой ди рука” means “to take in one’s hands;” in other words, “to capture, possess, and control.” Pука can also mean “authority.”

Another Russian term for power, держава, literally means “state” as in the “Irish state.” The term is associated with “orb” and “globe,” which were emblems of Russian imperial monarchy. This connotation is interesting because this Russian term for power implies the idea of empire – not a nation or people. An empire is based on an idea, what has been called a “form” – a holy Christian empire, for example; an empire is explicitly not a people or a nation. This idea of empire is more closely related to caliphate in Islamic thought. A caliph is not limited in his rule to a particular people or tribe – his rule represents God’s rule which ipso facto potentially embraces all mankind. The same is true for a Christian emperor such as Constantine, equal of the apostles, who sets laws not for one nation or region – but for the entire Christian empire, and the Emperor’s laws, which are nothing more than extensions of God’s laws, even reach unto the people who will be conquered by the Christian empire in the future. 

As we’ve noted in other languages, power is often associated with strength and might. Russian is no different in this regard. The term могуществ means “might” while a derivative word, могуществен, is defined as both “powerful” and “potent.” мощь also denotes “might.” мочь is a term which means “to be able” but also can be translated as “power” or “might.” сила is a term denoting “strength” and “force.” 

Another intriguing Russian conception of power is the term защитник. Защитник literally means “power-exercising protectorate.” The term is sometimes translated as “defender” or “protector” but it perfectly captures Carl Schmitt’s link between protection and power: protection therefore obligation (Schmitt, 1996). When someone protects you, you are automatically obligated to that person. 

Yet another unique Russian conception of power is found in the term убойность, which is a military term meaning “effectiveness.” However, the term also is defined as “destructive power.” Here, then, is a clear link between “effective power” and aggression: in this case a weapon’s measured capacity to cause damage. The term is associated with the word убойн, which is an agricultural term meaning “slaughter.”

It’s important to note that the term influence is not found in any Russian conceptions of power. Instead, influence is found in the criminal concept of “pull,” or “lean.” Such is the idea behind the word блат, which denotes “pull” or “protection,” as in “I paid protection to the mob so they would leave my hamburger stand alone.” Incidentally, this hypothetical example demonstrates the difference between power and influence. I paid (influence) protection (money) to the mob so they would leave my hamburger stand alone (power). A word derived from блат literally means “criminal.” This is a primary Russian conception of influence. So when American professors talk of “soft power,” their Russian counterparts may hear “string-pulling” and “criminal leverage.” 

One of the only Russian words with a pure, non-criminal conception of influence is влияние. Влияние literally is defined as “influence” and means to have the quality of being influential. It also has a secondary meaning of “impact” or “effect.” The verb form “влиять” means to change how a thing or person behaves or develops. Still another word defined as influence is воздействие. This word primarily means to have an impact. For example, it can mean “to influence by example” as in “the teacher’s example as a sailor influenced the young man to enter the navy.”  We see in these terms a clear distinction between having an effect on and the idea of “taking” or “seizing” something. For Russians, influence is an echo, power is grasping; influence is secretive, interested dealings; power is imperial coercion; influence is блат, criminal pull; power is убойн, slaughter. 

There is a tangential relationship between the Russian conception of power and influence. This link exists in the term “властьтел” which means “ruler” or “sovereign.” The term is sometimes used to indicate “lord.” In addition, the term can also mean “dominant influence,” an influence beyond all other influences that is not equal to other influences and is exercising hegemonic control, especially when compared with other influences. This idea is easily pictured in a government censorship committee. The committee is more influential than any other influencer on a work, because it is decisive. A censorship committee has the power to ban (nullify) a work; it can force changes, and even issue criminal liability for a work; whereas another influence on a work, such as an editor, can only make suggestions; suggestions which the author of the work can ignore. Effective censorship cannot be ignored; it can only be subverted; in which case the author sets himself above the governmental committee and distributes the work without the committee’s approval. But in such a case, the author of the work and those who aid him are actually forming a new censorship committee, a committee which allows the film and nullifies the work of the government’s official committee. In which case, the government is no longer sovereign and a state of either potential or actual civil war exists in the government’s jurisdiction. Such is in fact the case regarding certain criminal enterprises where cartels use money and threats of violence to subvert reporting, governmental controls and policing. In this case, the cartel, and not the government, is the real government in an area. The official government is in name only. 

Names and documents mean nothing. Effective decisions mean everything. The capacity to condemn and have the condemnation stick is the true mark of power. The power to define and have the definition stick is another. In other words, the power to nullify rival definitions is the power to define. The power to open a road or close a road says more about effective political control of an area than a thousand constitutions. The Russian language captures this political truth better than English. 

The Conception of Power in the Portuguese Language

In many ways, Portuguese mirrors interpretations of the concept of power I’ve identified in other languages. Consider an example: força. Força means “strength,” “might” or “force.” It also has a secondary meaning of “power.” Likewise, the term poderio is defined as “might.” Still another word means “strength.” It is the term “pujança.” A similar word, “pujante,” means “powerful.” All Portuguese citations are from Whitlam and Raitt (1998).

As a verb, poder has a much more limited sense than the similar word expressed in Spanish. For Portuguese, poder means both “power” and “to be able to” as in “capacity.” The idea of “to be able to” expresses a freedom of action. The man with power is free. Conversely, the nullified man is not free; he is not able to do a great many things. 

Portuguese has a number of unique interpretations of power. For example, alçada means “competence” or “jurisdiction.” The term can mean power in the sense of a range of authority, or purview. Another idiosyncratic Portuguese term with implications for the concepts of influence and power is the word “potência.” Potência is defined as “power” or “potency” – the ability to accomplish or affect something. A secondary meaning is “influence.” 

By and large, the Portuguese language makes a distinction between influence and power. For instance, influência means influence, as in “prestige,” or interestingly, “moral authority.” The verb form of influência is influenciar, which has the meaning “to influence” or “to weigh.” The verb also has interesting connotations of “to bias.”

While potência does have a secondary meaning of influence, for the most part the Portuguese language makes a clear distinction between the two concepts of power and influence – a distinction that is less pronounced in the English language. 

Conclusion: The Power-Influence Spectrum

In this chapter, I reviewed the conceptions of “power” and “influence” in Hindi, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Urdu, Russian, and Japanese. Upon analysis, it was found that almost all languages reviewed in this study, including English, conceive of power and influence as existing on an “action spectrum.” On the action spectrum, actions range from absolute influence to absolute power. As actions move from less coercive to more coercive, they increase their power content. Moreover, I demonstrated that Arabic, Russian, and to a lesser extent, Urdu, Japanese and Chinese languages draw a more pronounced distinction between the concepts of power and influence than does English. 

Influence is suggestion; power is coercion. Influence allows the target to choose; power does not. Influence bends a tree in a certain direction; power cuts it down. Influence grows a budding sapling, encouraging its growth. Power removes the sapling and replants it where the powerful decides. The influential may artificially limit the saplings growth by removing nutrients; the powerful uproots and destroys. The difference between the two concepts is more than just degree, although degree of capacity does enter into the difference. But there is also the attribute of force – power is force while influence is suggestion. Influence is the charismatic priest who guides young people in the ways of the Lord. Power is Moses commanding – and forcing – the Israelites to obey God’s law. 

Power and influence exist on a spectrum ranging from influence to power, or put another way, from enticement to force, from carrot to stick. This is why Shakespeare, father of poets, writes:

If you hide the crown

Even in your hearts, there will the King rake for it:

Therefore in fierce tempest is he coming,

In thunder and in earthquake, like a Jove,

That, if requiring fail (influence – L.W.), he will compel (power – L.W.);

And bids you,

Deliver up the crown, and to take mercy

On the poor souls for whom this hungry war

Opens his vasty jaws; and on your head

Turning the widows’ tears, the orphans’ cries

The dead men’s blood, the pining maidens groans,

For husbands, fathers and betrothed lovers,

That shall be swallow’d (nullified – L.W.) in this controversy.

This is his claim, his threatening (influence and power – L.W.) and my message.

Thus we see, for Father Shakespeare, influence and power exist on an action spectrum, precisely as the numerous linguistic definitions we have reviewed in this essay suggest they do.  

To summarize: all power and influence actions exist on a spectrum ranging from absolute influence to absolute power. The more a term connotes force and violence, the more a term connotes power. In contradistinction, the more a word connotes example, seduction, or suggestion, the more a word connotes influence. A key difference between power and influence is the target’s choice. With influence, the target has choice. As an action moves from left to right on the action spectrum, as an action grows more coercive, the target has less choice. This culminates in a situation of absolute power where the target is dead: totally, objectively, and completely without choice. 

In conclusion, there is a pronounced empirical distinction in the understanding of billions of human beings between the concepts of power and influence. Power and influence are not the same. Power is the capacity to nullify the enemy. Influence is the capacity to affect the target. Decades ago, Clausewitz wrote: “Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln” (war is the continuation of policy by other means). In other words: when influence fails, power compels. 

Clausewitz was right. 

The Language of Power References:

Bachrach P. & Baratz, M.S. (1962). Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review, 56(4), pp. 947-952. 

Baldwin, D.A. (2016). Power and international relations: A conceptual approach. Princeton University Press.

Bernstein, P.L. (2012). The power of gold: The history of an obsession. Wiley. 

Bierstedt, R. (1959). An analysis of social power. American Sociological Review, 15(6), 730-738.

Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). “Power.” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english-urdu/power 

Collins, D. (2011). Everyday Arabic dictionary. McGraw-Hill.

Dahl, R.A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201-215.

Dahl, R. A. (1963). Who governs?: Democracy and power in the American city. Yale University Press. 

Hickson, D.J., Hinings, C.R., Lee, C.A., Schneck, R.E., and Pennings, J.M. (1971). A strategic contingencies’ theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 216-229.

Forget, P. (2008, Juin). L’esprit de puissance en Occident. Krisis. (30). 97-132.

French, J.R.P. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63(3), 181-194. 

Friedkin, N. (1986). A formal theory of social power. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 12(2), 103-126.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis. University of California Press. 

Jarman, B.G. & Russell, R. (1994). The Oxford Spanish dictionary. Oxford University Press. 

Kikin, K.K. (1989). Basic Japanese-English dictionary. Oxford University Press. 

Lohausen, J.V. (1985). Les empires et la puissance. Le Labyrinthe. 

Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view. Palgrave. 

McGregor, R.S. (1993). The Oxford Hindi-English dictionary. Oxford University Press. 

McLachlan, H.V. (1981). Is power an evaluative concept? British Journal of Sociology, 32(3), 392-410.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Threat. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/threat?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

Morriss, R. (1987). Power: A philosophical analysis. Manchester University Press. 

Manser, M. et al. (2003). Oxford Chinese dictionary: English-Chinese, Chinese-English dictionary. Oxford University press. 

Oxford University Press. (2010). Oxford essential Arabic dictionary. Oxford University Press. 

Oxford University Press. (2004). Oxford Zulu-English dictionary: Isichazamazwi sesiZulu. Oxford University Press.

The Oxford Russian dictionary (1995). Oxford University Press. 

Salimuddin, M. et al. (2003). Oxford Urdu-English dictionary. Oxford University Press.

Schmitt, C. (1996). The concept of the political. University of Chicago Press. 

Shanul, H.H. (2005). The little Oxford English-Urdu dictionary. Oxford University Press. 

Tolkien, J.R.R. (n.d.). The Silmarillion: Illustrated. Harpers Collins e-books. 

Weber, Max. (2018). Economy and society. (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.) University of California Press. 

Webster’s new world compact Japanese dictionary: Japanese/English, English/Japanese dictionary (1983). Simon & Schuster. 

Whitlam, J. & Raitt, L.N.R.C. (1998). The Oxford Portuguese dictionary. Berkeley Pub. Group. 

Zeidan, A. (2023, August 7). Languages by total number of speakers. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/languages-by-total-number-of-speakers-2228881