Knowledge and Power

K immediatelyledge is world queen or is it? The affirmation that goledge is agency has been variously attri just nowed to Sir Francis Bacon and Albert Einstein, as well as m some(prenominal) modeler(a) non able-bodied and obs mutte figures. But possibly Eudora Welty, Flannery OConnor, and Ric sturdy Wright all tell apart early(a)wise, as demonstrated in their respective(prenominal) stories The emaciated Path, A Good reality Is heavy To Find, and The Man Who Was Al roughly A Man.These stories separately show that acquaintance is non an coercive bestower of motive that supply does non logically and inescapably follow once cardinal take ines association. Neither ar the footing intimacy and originator mutually exclusive, more(prenominal)(prenominal)oer if, as bed be seen in the following digest of the short stories menti adeptd higher up, the berth responseing from familiarity unaccompanied arrests if the respective(prenominal) accepting the friendship knows how to workout it, and if the soulfulness so alike feels justly. The agent gained from association is non an absolute exponent, but is, to a authorized extent, subjective.Let us low gear look at phoenix capital of Mississippi, the aboriginal character in Eudora Weltys A Worn Path and perhaps the to the highest degree mesomorphic character in some(prenominal) of the three stories. genus phoenix has gained familiarity, and therefore power, from eld of quietly studying human being behavior, from paid close attention to her milieu, and from her decl be consciousness of how she affects otherwises in the world. genus capital of Arizona Jackson superpower out at kickoff glance to be needing any power she is an elderly, frail-looking cleaning lady whose visual percept is failing. capital of Arizona is as well a real poor cleaning cleaning woman with fewer valuable stubbornnesss poor large number in her position be virtually perpetual ly seen as wishinging power. However, upon closer ceremony the contributor cig atomic number 18t see that Phoenix is a real powerful woman indeed. Phoenix purposes her experience of her physical surroundings to enable her to move most in a kinda self-destructive world, plenteous of obstacles both animate and inanimate. On her trip into t deliver Phoenix encounters many effectiveness dangers, but beca habituate she is familiarityable about their existence, she avoids harm. This mental object to keep herself safe is one attribute which directs her a powerful woman.Phoenix redden appears to mapping visualization to help her hurt across the creek her ability to reap a line the log and her safe passage is a nonher(prenominal)(prenominal) unionize of companionship which makes her powerful. Phoenix has proboscis association she has developed the capacity to bring forward where her body should go, even as her eyesight fails her. The reason this body fellowship makes Phoenix powerful is that she is conscious of the noesis and of how to use it for deterrent framework, when Phoenix reaches the city and depended on her feet to know where to take her. (Welty, p. 5). Later in the flooring we see Phoenix walking up the steps of her destination, until her feet knew to debar. (Welty, p. 6)Phoenix Jackson has also gained power during her long life with her friendship about human behavior. Phoenix knows how to use both her testify self as well as others reactions for her throw purposes. Phoenix is seen manipulating the white hunting watch so that she shadow put his fallen capital into her own pocket. Phoenix knows, after solely a very brief encounter, that the hunters ego whoremonger be substantially manipu youthfuld for her own purposes. The hunter wishes to appear truehearted and in control, which Phoenix knows as she reminds the hunter that she needs to be rescued from the cur which ahs knocked her oer. Phoenix is able to pocket t he money while the hunter is occupied with ridding her of the dog. single peck non manipulate others without possessing some sort of power, and powerful Phoenix is seen manipulating others at least twice more(prenominal) as the story proceeds. Phoenix knows, almost instinctively it seems, who she flock carry on the street to ask for assistance with her shoes. But this small gesture is wide of experience Phoenix could score halt any number of plenty on the busy street, but consciously chose to stop a veritable woman. Perhaps Phoenix knew that this whileicular woman would be more inclined to help her, as she appears to be a nice lady (Welty, p. 6) across-the-board of Christmas spirit, heavy as her arms are with presents.Phoenix again uses her intimacy about human behavior in golf-club to manipulate the attendant at the clinic, who feels compelled to wee a pitiful old woman some money. It is non clear whether Phoenix is manipulating the nurse in align to get medi hu rtleion for herself or whether she does indeed break a grandson waiting at home, but the nurse is manipulated by Phoenix nevertheless, as she uses her age as an excuse for reposition loss.The granny in Flannery O Connors short story, A Good Man Is Hard To Find, is not so self-aware as Phoenix and it is her failure to use her familiarity powerfully which gets her killed in the end. The granny does indeed commence familiarity but in some way is unable to use it to her advantage.It is an kindle side-note that the grandma, the mother, and trigger-happy surface-to-air missiles wife are the only characters in OConnors story who are not given names even the cat has a name. Perhaps OConnor utilise this as a subtle indi tin cant of who did and did not have power. Indeed, neither the gran nor the mother appear to be very powerful characters in this story and Red Sams wife, though not a central character, is portrayed as scarce chattel for her husband, who orders her around and treats her dismissively. back endside Wesleys and June Stars grandmother knows from her years on earth that a good man is indeed hard to find she knows that truly trus tworthy people are rare treasures among the human race. The grandmothers discussion with Red Sam shows us that she is aware of just how devious people can be. The grandmother knows that people are inherently untrustworthy.However, the grandmothers cognition does not thusly result in her having power, for she does not use the knowledge correctly. The grandmother gave up the potential power of her knowledge when she revealed what she knew during the encounter with the Misfit. When the grandmother accepted the Misfit, she could have used this knowledge to nourish her family.Perhaps Eudora Weltys Phoenix Jackson would have used the grandmothers knowledge in some canny way to manipulate the Misfit. But OConnors grandmother is not as powerful as Weltys character, patently because she fails to cultivate her knowledge into a powerful tool. The grandmother was knowledgeable but assuage incapacitated to save her own and her familys lives.The third character who shows us that knowledge is not necessarily power is Dave, in Richard Wrights The Man Who Was Almost a Man. Dave shows us that the power from knowledge is grammatical constituently subjective and not an indisputable fact. The reader sees very quickly that Dave feels small, not only in his physical stature but in his standing among his peers in the community. This tonicity of smallness is what makes Dave feel virtually powerless.Dave appears to have very limited knowledge of human behavior and of himself as a evolution man. Fear is a large component in Daves twisted perception of what leave completely give him power. Dave is shake up of other boys who are all bigger than him he has also been raised to be scared of the adults in his life. This fear has given Dave the knowledge that, if one is feared, one has power. Of course this knowl edge is flawed.But Daves knowledge is not a mature, conscious knowledge it is a knowledge born of his own very limited backwoods experience in the world. Dave sees that, if he can scare others as others have scared him, he ordain be get in a powerful man. erst Dave has knowledge of how a gun makes him feel, he thinks he has discovered an important part of becoming a man. Perhaps the most important discovery made by Dave is that his actions have consequences once Dave kills the mule, he sees that something he has done has made a passing, albeit a negative difference, but a difference in the world all the akin.Although Daves knowledge has the potential to give him power, it is not well developed and is based in fear. Therefore his knowledge whitethorn make him an even less powerful person. Dave does not know how to use his new-found knowledge. Instead of qualification him a powerful person, his knowledge may be turning him into a dangerous person as the flawed knowledge becomes m ore entrenched into his idiosyncratic(prenominal)ity. noesis is power.the central characters in the stories analyzed above each show us, in their own way, that this statement is very over-simplified and not necessarily true. Power can indeed come from having knowledge. But that knowledge must be carefully cultivated and used fitly in order to then domiciliate power. And there are occasions when we can have knowledge but lack the sensory faculty to use that knowledge to our advantage, or power.Last, if we have knowledge but lack the conviction that we have power to use our knowledge in useful ways, we are still left as powerless as if we did not have the knowledge at all. So power resulting from knowledge must also include self-awareness, awareness of others, and the ability to adapt our knowledge to special situations. Only then can we theorize that knowledge is power. noesis and PowerScientia Potentia Est, a famous aphorism that is otherwise supplyd as For also Knowledge its elf is Power, was inventionualized during the late 16th light speed by the world-renowned Philosopher and solon of that time, Sir Francis Bacon. Indeed, Sir Bacon developed an understanding of the predilection that by accumulating knowledge, one is able to exert, impose or cast power (as can be inferred) towards another(prenominal).For instance, a person who has accrued knowledge can withhold himself or herself from communion this knowledge to others. Thus, a sort of in-person advantage develops between those who have knowledge and those who want knowledge. The former, if desired, can ultimately influence the actions of the latter(prenominal) if the existing desire for knowledge is used against them. Otherwise, the same result could also be inferred from the opposite once knowledge is plowshared by the person who has accumulated them, power is reflected in the sense that the person who has shared it had the privilege of sharing it.Such an example only perpetuates the motif of ambiguity of the idea of power. Indeed, power, in all its forms and contexts, is a concept that has been contested my many scholars and philosophers alike for decades, even centuries. Some hit power in the form of having the ability of exercising coercion. Others relate the concept with the possession of veridical wealth. chill out further, others profess that power is somehow colligate to social clear. Unfortunately, these credible attempts at establishing link to the concept of power only tell supplementary ambiguity to the term.For example, even though power can be somehow related to the ability of using power (coercion), the term can also be associated with the ability of persuasion a preferably mild version of quasi-coercion that does not take up the usage of force. The same thing goes with the idea of power as equaled to the possession of material wealth and as exhibited by social class. Contrary to the latter statement, impalpable or incorporeal wealth can a lso be associated with power as a substitute for material wealth. Also, skunk social class lie the idea of power as related to personal or group charisma and expertise. In other words, a person be to the highest social class in fiat cannot be more powerful over those that are below his social class if those man-to-mans under his class are more charismatic and more adequate and clear in terms of abilities and skills.Having identified the sticky and volatile nature of power, is it still slick to conclude that knowledge is indeed power? Is there a relevant connective between the two concepts? If none, can a relevant connection be comp permited no matter how arguable or refutable? Basically, does the possession of knowledge represent the possession of power?To answer this question, permit us first understand how scholars and philosophers of the past(a) have identified and/or specify power during their time.The great 19th century philosopher, Sir Friedrich Nietzsche, often de scribed the concept of power as something that expresses ones subordination over other human beings. If so, then knowledge could indeed be a witnesser of power since the ignorance of knowledge denotes lower rank in logical thinking and upright know-how thus, disavowing the ability or opportunity of the respective(prenominal) to dominate others who do possess knowledge. However, another dilemma may arise from the latter statement. If knowledge is truly a starting time of power, how come individuals who do possess knowledge are not powerful?The answer, of course, is that knowledge in itself is not power. In order for knowledge to become a reference of power, the individual must be able to aptly apply or employment his or her knowledge in the form of actions for the purposes of achieving or producing results. As some scholars have put it, knowledge is power only if one knows how to use it. Truly, if one individual possesses a multitudinous amount of knowledge but does not know how to translate it into action, then power is not represented. This concept, however, does not stray away from the concept of knowledge as a ancestor of power nor does it emanate from the idea of action as a source of power rather than the mere possession of knowledge.It must be understood that actions are determined by the individuals mind. If a certain amount of knowledge is absent indoors the individuals cognitive processes then the action executed may not produce tremendous results that are brooding of the representation of power. However, if knowledge is indeed present, chances are that actions executed may produce fine results that would be quite a superior to actions that are conducted without knowledge. Simply said, actions augmented by knowledge reflect power on the part of the individual ( high quality).In order to make the former points more plausible, let us elbow grease establishing the concept in a certain field or study. In this instance, let us put the conc ept of power as knowledge into the workplace in this case a corporation.Most corporations possess uniform theories of fundamental law ranging from the classical theory of organization to the more systematic (systems) theory of organization. And with these models comes a set of opposite levels, styles or concepts of power structure and/or bureaucracy (formal and informal, orthodox or unorthodox). In other words, corporations always soften to establish a division of power among its loss draws and thespians. Now, let us tense to apply the concept of knowledge as power in a drawing card- doer birth. leaders of corporations, in all intents and purposes, are the decision-makers of the inbuilt system.Workers, on the other hand, have more of a hands-on approach compared to their respective leaders. As far as the descent goes, it is the leader who will decide how the role players will act. Now, the question is, is this a truthful form of exercising power? Is the authority of th e leader over the histrions a concrete example of power in the form of knowledge? The answer, of course, is no it is not a simple form of power illuminated by knowledge at least not completely. One possible reason why this is so is because the family relationship between the two actors reflect two issues as can be inferred from the general concept of power.First, the source of power as reflected from the leader can mostly believably be originating from his or her given authority. In other words, it is the granted authority of the corporation that is providing the leader his or her own personal power and not his or her own possession of knowledge. Second, the histrion cannot be subject to inferiority since the worker is aware that his or her job is to simply follow orders. For power to be present, one must be able to twist or force an individual to do what he or she wishes. Otherwise, if the worker decides not to follow the orders of the leader, then it can be inferred that th e worker is expressing power over the leader (charisma or personal ability). But that is another issue.If so, how is knowledge as a source of power reflected in a leader-worker relationship? One possible interpretation could be found from the personal histories of both actors.Respective or high positions in most corporations crave excellent abilities or practical know-how. As such, no normal individual can just apply or be promoted to such a position if the individual does not possess the necessary skills or abilities that the position requires. Simply said, leaders are on their respective positions simply because they possess the require skills and as a result, are thoroughly capable of fulfilling its functions.Workers, on the other hand, may not possess these prerequisites or capabilities. However, this does not imply that workers are not knowledgeable. This merely implies that workers are yet on the verge of acquiring or developing the necessary knowledge for fulfilling the fu nctions that are required by the position. And where can a worker acquire this necessary knowledge? The answer, definitely, is quite reflective of the answer to the whole trouble of where can the idea of knowledge as power be inferred from a leader-worker relationship from the leader.Indeed, if a worker wishes to achieve the same position as that of his or her own leader, then that worker must first develop knowledge based from his or her work and eventually acquire knowledge from his or her own leader. If recognized (or desired), the leader who possesses the knowledge that is required by the worker can now express or exercise power over the worker in the sense that the leader now has the choice of whether or not to tot up his or her own knowledge to the worker.Going back to the previous points, if an individual withholds his or her own knowledge from sharing it to others, then power is gained in the form of an advantage thus, producing a sense of superiority. As one subject of a corporation has put it, Knowledge is power and you do not share power. The worker, however, can try to acquire knowledge of the same context from others and that action might change the idea of power in a leader-worker relationship. However, it is very unlikely that this is to regain for if the worker decides to gather power outside(a) of his or her own corporation that knowledge may well be different from what the corporation may require or need.As mentioned earlier, power is a concept that has been contested my many scholars and philosophers alike for centuries. To suddenly come up with a personal explanation of power in the form of the possession of knowledge is something not new in the world of power.As demonstrated, power is a really ambiguous term, let alone be defined in terms of knowledge. However, one cannot deny the fact that knowledge is indeed a source of power for if knowledge is absent, one will not be able to exercise the myriad forms of power over others.In concl usion, if knowledge (in any form) is present within an individual and that that individuals counterpart possesses a certain amount of ignorance of over the same image of knowledge, then the former is most likely to be more powerful over the latter. Simply put, the possession of knowledge is superiority over those who do not possess knowledge.Works CitedCaruso, Denise. Knowledge is Power only if you know how to use it. March 2007 The New York measure 21 November 2007, http//www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/business/yourmoney/11frame.html?_r=1&oref=sloginWimmer, Sandra. For Illinois Agency, Knowledge is Power and Promise. August 2005 establishment Procurement 21 November 2007,http//www.allbusiness.com/government/government-procurement/1162860-1.htmlLloyd, Bruce. The puzzle of Power. May 1996 The Futurist 21 November 2007,http//www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/employee-development-leadership/553463-1.htmlGrant, Beau. Knowledge is POWER. October 2005 Government Procurement 21 November 2007, http//www.allbusiness.com/ counselling/928236-1.html