Introduction
Power dynamics and structures are the most relevant aspects of any individual’s life, and love relationships are not exempt. Though people talk little of relationships’ power, the phenomenon is inevitable and made is complex by the paradigm shift in the contemporary society, where feminist ideologists advocate for equity in relationships as a way for overcoming the macho dominance, a long standing social construct, of the patriarchal society. A recent study by Simpson, Farrell, Oriña et al. (2014) uses the dyadic power-social influence model to corroborate the existence of power dynamics and structures. The model specifically emphasizes on an individual’s ability to influence another, while resisting the influence in the reverse direction. Simpson, Farrell, Oriña et al. (2014) highlight the concept of power balance that dominates debates on healthy love relationships in the contemporary modern society, further justifying the existence of power dynamics and structures in such partnerships. Despite numerous debates relating to the presence or absence of power dynamics in love relationships, they do not discredit Gastil’s (1993) argument that power dynamics and structures exist even in the smallest groups (such as a love relationship between two people) with partners attempting to influence each other even in cases where autonomy to such power is nonexistent.
According to Chang (2015), a significant number of people seek therapeutic guidance on how to navigate the complexities of the social world, brought about by power dynamics and socio-cultural differences in their relationships. The general consensus among stakeholders is that the dominant and submissive roles are the very basic of any love relationship, and their association with power dynamics and socio-cultural structures can have significant influence in an individual’s identity, well-being, and relationships. One can argue that the complexities around power dynamics and structures in any love relationships, are a consequence of failure by numerous factions to understand the concept of privilege, a societal conception of preferences that constitute “who and what” qualify as desirable traits. Notwithstanding the concepts of feminism and equality in modernity, power roles remain a part of sex lives, and either individual in a relationship is likely to play a specific role under the power dynamics and structures.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Conceptualizing and Understanding Power Dynamics in Relationships
A significant number of theories and models have been put forward to explain the concept of power dynamics in love relationships. Gastil (1993) defines power as “a force that gives one communicator the ability to influence another to take action that would otherwise be void”. The definition highlights a critical element associated with power, as not belonging to any specific individual, group, institution, or environment, but rather a phenomenon that operates “in-between” contexts and relationships. According to Simpson, Farrell, Oriña et al. (2014), in 1938, the philosopher Bertrand Russel posited that “power was fundamental to social science the same way energy was to physics, and that the laws of social dynamics can only be stated in terms of power” (p. 393). The inevitability of the phenomenon in any form of partnership is what informs the inquisition into its role in love relationships – whether bisexual or same sex relationships.
Morgan (1996) axes privilege model is suited to understanding of power dynamics in love relationships because it is representative of all economic and socio-cultural elements that are fundamental to existence of power in any given partnership. Categorization of individual into classes of the privileged and the oppressed based on social and economic constructions such as skin color, gender, virility, economic class, age, and disability (see figure 1 below), is the cause of power differences in love relationship. However, it is important to understand that an individual can have privilege in one area, but may be lacking in another, implying that their power in a relationship is no absolute. Nevertheless, privilege underpins the way an individual interact with the world and others, and is the genesis of domination and oppression, aspects that have brought to focus power play and structures in love relationships (Morgan, 1996).
Figure 1: The intersecting axes between privilege, domination, and oppression (Morgan, 1996).
The above figure can be argued to be a generalization of power dynamics in the context of the diversity of the society, but the same elements cascade down to influence power play in love relationships. Similar to other contexts, power in love relationships becomes dominance if one partner is able to influence the other, who is not capable of responding in kind (Gastil, 1993). Domineering individuals tend to impose their will on their partners without regard of their needs. The important factor to note under such love relationships is that the extent of power an individual has over their partner is immensely dependent on the level of dependence between the two. The partner with higher privileges is likely to dictate the direction of power in a love relationship because they command a lot of resources, which highlights the usefulness of Morgan’s (1996) axes of privileges model in understanding these power dynamics. However, it is crucial to note that even in love relationships where one partner is dominant, it does not prevent the other from demonstrating power of their own in the form of “resistance”. Gastil (1993) argues that power imbalance in any context can be corrected through empowerment of the underprivileged, but it does not imply that all partners wield and share power equally, as its distribution constantly shift over time as the two continue to associate.
Simpson, Farrell, Oriña et al. (2014) posit that the dynamism in power dynamics and structures itself, is the main impediment to power becoming a central, organizing construct in the fields of social psychology and interpersonal relationships; this in no way deconstructs the existence of power in all relationships. The complexity of power as a construct makes it definition and measurement difficult, hence the challenge in determining the amount of power wielded by each partner in a relationship, which may be the cause of the argument behind power-free relationships. One can argue that since power in a relationship is immeasurable, the manner it is enumerated through actions may be an outcome of the underlying principles of the relationship rather than a demonstration of power play in action. For instance, gender roles may be considered a norm by both partners rather than dominance of their partner over them, making the concept of power play inapplicable under the context. According to Simpson, Farrell, Oriña et al. (2014), frameworks that are used to measure power lack rigor because of their dependence on description and global assessments of power as a construct. Though individuals in a love relationship may exert certain amounts of power in different decision-making domains, the global model may fail to predict the specific areas where power play occurs in relationships. However, individuals aware of the power dynamics in their relationship can adopt influencing strategies and tactics of getting what they want from their partner, though the degree of such understanding remains vague.
Power dynamics exist in both heterosexual and same-sex love relationships
Proponents of power free love relationships may recognize the existence of power, but rather choose to perceive it from a neutral perspective, where power is shared equally among partners. Whether such is the case or not, Maggie and Smith (2013) argue that relationships are defined by the fundamental asymmetry of dependence between partners, whose outcome is asymmetric social distance, where individuals with high power feel more distant compared to those with low power. In light of this understanding, it is possible to predict the role of power in social comparison, susceptibility to influence, mental state inference and responsiveness, and emotional wellbeing. Adopting the power-free perspective, one can argue that its fundamental principle is in equal power among partners, which Knudson-Martin (2012) posits to be a crucial recipe for intimate and successful love relationships. However, equal power in love relationships remains a distant dream for many partners as the increasing desires for equal relationships are thwarted by the existence of poorly developed cultural models to support this discourse. Such is the case in heterosexual relationships where gender roles for men and women are defined by long held social constructs that have survived and weathered onslaught from feminists and other activists to remain accepted norm in the contemporary modern society. It is worth noting that “same sex” love relationships are no exception.
One would expect that in such a relationship, power is shared equally because partners are of the same gender, but the social constructs and discourses underpinned in heterosexual relationships find their way into same-sex partnerships too. According to the study by Moore (2008) examining household decision-making among black, lesbian families, power dynamics and structures that define such relationships are no understood. However, Moore (2008) also established that partners in such relationships share the role to provide, but biological mothers were observed to perform significantly more chores in the household. According to Moore (2008), more household chores are used as a trade-off for greater power over other aspects such as organization of the household, family finances, and childbearing. The assumption of roles defined as those of a wife or husband in heterosexual relationships, suggests that even same-sex love relationships cannot succeed without power dynamics and structures to aid in decision-making.
Overview of power theories
According to Simpson, Farrell, Oriña et al. (2014), the theoretical perspective of power are used to understand power dynamics and structures in relationships. Social psychology, family science, and communication studies employ this approach by posing a number of questions that seek to understand power as a construct and its dynamism in any given relationship including love partnerships. Once can argue that the theoretical perspectives of power are founded on the abstract mental representation espoused by powerful individuals in a relationship, manifested through their influence on goal selection and pursuit, value-behavior correspondence, attention to desirable and feasible concerns, subjective certainty, self-control, and perception of self (Maggie & Smith, 2013). For instance, the social theory of power, which defines power as the ability to exert influence on another person the nature of the relationship notwithstanding, is based on social influence, which refers to how social power is wielded in such contexts through use of different dynamics and structures. Simpson, Farrell, Oriña et al. (2014) observe that “social influence occurs when the presence or actions of one person produce a change in the beliefs, attitudes, or behavior of another person” (395). Such influence can only be wielded by the powerful partner in the relationship, its measure is dependent on how much power and social distance they influencing partner commands (Maggie & Smith, 2013).
In the same vein, the resource theory of power can be used to explain the power dynamics and structures underlying love relationships. Blood and Wolfe (1960) define resources as “a property of one individual which can be made available to another as instrumental to the satisfaction of their needs or the attainment of their goals” (p. 100). This revisits Morgan (1996) axes of privilege model and Gastil (1993) dependence theory that are central to influencing power dynamics in love relationships. The resource theory highlights the importance of relevant resources including skills, knowledge, finances, and status. One can argue that no relationship is equal in terms of partners’ access or ability to afford certain resources, and it is likely that the underprivileged partner will cede power to their influential partner. However, complexities arise when such dependence disrupts the social constructs in relation to gender, For instance, the in traditional contemporary society, men were viewed as the providers of the family, and even in the modern society, they retain the role to provide, but the empowerment of women, which Gastil (1993) observed to be a strategy for achieving power balance, has seen a paradigm shift in such roles with women earning more than their male partners. The implications for the love relationships are immense because the aspects such as goal selection and pursuit, self-perception, and self-control (Maggie & Smith, 2013) are likely to be affected.
The resource theory of power is closely linked to that of interdependence, a theory put forward to define power as the ability of one partner to directly influence the quality of outcomes that the other person receives under give circumstances. The interdependence theory of power emphasizes on the relationship between rewards and costs, implying that two people in a love relationship contribute towards the success of their relationship, but such contributes may be unequal, and the partner with better alternatives is likely to command better rewarding outcomes in comparison to their partner (Simpson, Farrell, Oriña et al., 2014). While the resources and social theories of power may tend towards giving autonomy to the powerful partner, the interdependence theory of power can be effective in situation where both partners have privileges to certain resources that the other does not have. One can argue that the interdependence theory of power embodies the concept of power balance because power dynamics in such a relationship are constantly shifting depending on what each partner can bring on the table.
According to Simpson, Farrell, Oriña et al. (2014), power dynamics are best represented through the dyadic power theory (DPT), which was originally put forward by Rollins and Bar (1976) as a comprehensive model incorporating several other relationship theories. The significance of the model to this research paper is based on its specificity to power dynamics among married couples, who are representative of individuals in love relationships (see figure 2 below). Simpson, Farrell, Oriña et al. (2014) posit that the dyadic power theory is consistent with resource and interdependence theories, as it treats the relative levels of resources and influence held by each partner as a source of power in the relationship. According to the DPT, these levels have a significant influence on the behavior and outcomes of each partner in a relationship due to the resulting power. The dyadic power can also be used to explain the power within relationships theory that is founded on the grounding principles that dictate the close relationship between partners and the strong and frequent influence they have on each other behavior, feelings and emotions across social contexts.
Figure 2: The Dyadic power model (Farrell, Oriña et al. , 2014, p. 400).
Gender Equity, Women Liberalization, and the Concept of Power Free Relationships
According to Lopez (2014), “love is a battlefield”, and this is no metaphor as love relationships epitomize social contexts where power dynamics and structures are demonstrated. The battle that is love has claimed numerous casualties over the past thirty or more years due to what Cornwall, Harrison, and Whitehead (2007) as an enormous growth in gender and development, which has changed the contemporary discourses, not just of gender role, but also of power dynamics and structures in love relationships. In the study by Lopez (2014) examining the role of infidelity in influencing interaction between Latina girls and their romantic partners, it was established that the girls use “red flags” to avoid partners who tick the boxes of being promiscuous. Such is the social context in modernity, where gender empowerment has allowed women to attain power balance and partake in the decision-making processes in their love relationships. The long held social construct of macho dominance, where men dictated proceedings is fast disappearing, even though Shefer, Crawford, Strebel et al. (2008) posit that some communities still offer resistance to the wave of feminism and gender activism.
The “power-free love” concept does not hold even in the wake of such shift in the discourse of power dynamics and structures. Humanity continues to live in social contexts full of people with different needs, interests, desires, concerns, and prejudices, that love relationships, whether in the passing or lifetime commitments must conform to certain power structures to be successful. In the modern contemporary society, it is not uncommon for the lines of authority to become blurred because the principles on which power dynamics were founded such as gender roles are progressively losing significance as men and women continue to fight for equality in all spheres pf life. The changes are attributed to women empowerment specifically, for instance, the developments in reproductive technologies that allow women to decide and control their fertility, gives them an upper hand over their male partners in childbearing decisions. This is just an example of many other aspects where the bargaining power has shifted to render existing traditional power dynamics and structures void as a new order develops and takes root. One can argue that while most theories of power dynamics in love relationships hold true, the interdependence power theory is more suited to understanding the modern context because it centralizes on power balance between partners in a love relationship.
Conclusion
There is a significant body of literature and empirical evidence justifying the existence of power dynamics and structures in love relationships, and little evidence exists to credit the concept of power-free relationships. The social contexts underlying love relationships are captured in the power theories, implying that such partnerships are not exempt from the discourse of authority and influence that is fundamental to their success. Despite new evidence showing a paradigm shift in the power balance between partners in love relationships, an outcome of the diverse gender and feminist campaigns, stakeholders are faced with the inevitability of power dynamics in a relationship. The situation is exacerbated the evident lack of reliable frameworks for defining and measuring how much power an individual in a relationship possesses. The change in the balance of power where women are becoming increasingly influential as an approach to countering the male dominance in the society has only added to the complexity of power dynamics and structures in love relationships. Gender role are disappearing, and the recognition and acceptance of same-sex love relationships makes understanding of power dynamics in such relationships even more difficult. However, while these developments point to the conflicts brought about by the constant shifts in power dynamics, they do not dispute the fact that power dynamics in love relationships is inevitable, and that power-free relationships, as a concept has no room regardless of the social context.
References
Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of married living. New York, NY: Free Press.
Chang, s. (July 2015). In love and struggle: Creating space for difficult dialogues about power, privilege, and oppression in intimate relationships. Retrieved on 6 December 20166 from: https://sandchang.com/2015/07/17/in-love-and-struggle-creating-space-for-difficult-dialogues-about-power-privilege-and-oppression-in-intimate-relationships/.
Cornwall, A., Harrison, E., & Whitehead, A. (2007). Gender myths and feminist fables: The struggle for interpretive power in gender and development. Development and Change , 38 (1), 1-20.
Gastil, J. (1993). Democracy in small groups: Participation, decision making, and communication. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
Knudson‐Martin, C. (2013). Why power matters: Creating a foundation of mutual support in couple relationships. Family Process , 52 (1), 5-18.
Lopez, V. (2014). Love is a battlefield: Mexican American girls’ strategies for avoiding players. Youth & Society , 0044118X14521223.
Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013). The social distance theory of power. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 17 (2), 158-186.
Moore, M. R. (2008). Gendered power relations among women: A study of household decision making in Black, lesbian stepfamilies. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 335-356.
Morgan, K. P. (1996). Describing the emperor's new clothes: Three myths of educational (in-) equity. The gender question in education: Theory, pedagogy, & politics , 105-122.
Rollins, B. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage. Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 38 , 619–627.
Shefer, T., Crawford, M., Strebel, A., Simbayi, L. C., Dwadwa-Henda, N., Cloete, A., ... & Kalichman, S. C. (2008). Gender, power and resistance to change among two communities in the Western Cape, South Africa. Feminism & Psychology , 18 (2), 157-182.
Simpson, J. A., Farrell, A. K., Oriña, M. M., & Rothman, A. J. (2014). Power and social influence in relationships. APA handbook of personality and social psychology (eds.: M. Mikulincer, PR Shaver), American Psychological Association, Washington , 393-420.
