Explicit power is the power an institution gives to an individual over other individuals. Basically anyone not at the bottom of an org chart has explicit power over all those below. An “institution” in this definition means anything from a family unit to a primitive tribe to the largest armies, governments, and corporations. Usually, but not always, there is some kind of official contract, constitution, job description, or other definition of the limits (or lack of limits) to this kind of power.
Implicit power exists when an individual controls or has the potential to control another individual or group in the absence of any “official” agreement. This type of power dynamic is more interesting. It is organic in that people with implicit power have to realize on their own that they have it, and then have to decide what to do with it.
Implicit power is much more common than explicit power. Every romantic relationship contains an internal implicit power dynamic. Who pursued whom? Who said “I love you” first? Who said “I love you” last? Whose career is more important?
Every high school in America is practically paralyzed by a conflicting, operatic jungle of both strict explicit and fecund implicit power dynamics. The teachers, administration, and, to a ridiculously puny degree, the student government have all the explicit power. Meanwhile the popular kids and bullies (who are often the same) have so much implicit power that they control the experience of the average student in most of the ways that actually matter day to day.
One of the things that makes the high school power experience so fascinating is that those with implicit power, the jocks and beautiful girls, are spontaneously discovering their power and then wielding it with a casual and breathtaking cruelty worthy of Genghis Khan.
That these dynamics are inborn and natural is almost indisputable. Leaving aside observations of similar dynamics in many social mammals, especially primates, the simple fact that these implicit dynamics arise in virtually every high school in essentially identical ways in different societies and times in spite of explicit attempts by school officials to dampen or eliminate them is proof enough. (For a fantastic analysis of the stereotypical ways groups of high school girls self organize see the book “Queen Bees and Wannabes“.)
That these dynamics are more powerful than the explicit power structure is also clear. Witness the ineffectual strategies parents and administrators devise to try to address bullying. If a student is bullied they have a choice. They can keep it a secret in the hopes that the bully will mostly leave them alone, in which case the bully wins. Or they can “snitch” on the bully, something the implicit power structure tellingly considers a near capital crime. Should the victim report their problem then the situation may be addressed in some way in the short term, but in the long term the problem is almost always made worse for the victim and the bully wins again. There is no witness protection program for high school snitches, and extreme bullying often can only be addressed by the victim changing schools. And the bully wins again.
So why is the situation so stacked in favor of the bully? And where do bullies come from? And where do the victims come from? These are the kinds of questions that fascinate me and that I will write about in more detail in future posts.
Tags: bullying, femdom, nietzsche, power exchange
