>>27681392To some theorists of "power", the threat of violence is imperial for having any chance of making somebody act against their preference of action.
I like Baratz and Bacharach model:
Imagine you are a base sentinel and a guy approaches. Your training requires that you shoot him, but not before warning him. So you do.
Well, in a case scenario, he listens, turns around and go.
So, did you have power over him? You could argue that yes. He bent to your will with a threat of force so... he's yo bitch. Or maybe, he's the Army's bitch, as your action wasn't YOUR will, but your training and hierarchy will. If you didn't do it, and the dude went Allahu Ackbar, then it's your ass that's gonna get fucked (dead or not).
So.... violence is important for power.
But let's say he DIDN'T turn around. You shot him. he ded.
Did you exercise power over him? Well... no. You exercised VIOLENCE over him. He had an idea, knew the consequences and.... didn't flinch. You could very well argue that HE had power over YOU, forcing you to do the shoting (or again, your army). Maybe the guy was suicidal, and then you just became an tool for his suicide.
Or maybe he was deaf, lol.
Either way, it's the threat of violence that counts.
But you should never have to act on it.
That's being weak
