User:PanosKratimenos/sandbox/BASC001/2020-21/Thursday11-12/Power

== Power of the West ==

Power in International Relations
Power is one of the most important and hard-to-define concepts in social sciences. In International relations (IR), power is normally defined as the ability of a state to pursue its interests under external pressures and impose its own will on other states and groups. Economic power, resources, military power, global image and influence contribute to a country’s power.

According to one of the foundational theories of liberalism, nations and international organizations are labelled as the primary actors in international politics. Power, therefore, lies within not only the nation’s military, but also in the set of bureaucracies that comprise the nation as a whole, and in the liberties of these international organisations. For example, modern colonialism as well as Western propaganda are heavily influential methods of domination that do not require direct exertion of power in the military sense. Moreover, international organisations such as the United Nations are accredited with enough power to intervene during moments of injustice, however, that is highly contested.

Conversely, the second foundational theory of realism states that nations are the only relevant actors in international politics, and international organisations do not hold the same influence or power, for reasons such as not having its own military etc. Realists assert that power, thus, lies mostly within a nation’s military along with its economy. The international system is seen as a constant struggle for power between countries that are all striving to maximise their national interest. It also precludes a ‘balance of power’ theory that suggest that states act together by forming flexible alliances in order to prevent any one state from becoming the global hegemon or too powerful.

The critical theory of constructivism, however, asserts that the concept of power itself is socially constructed. Constructivists believe that the determining factors of a country’s foreign policy, as described by liberalism and realism, maximisation of national interest and power politics, are not objective factors. The fact that nations and their actors/leaders believe that these are the main drivers of foreign politics makes them act in such a way that they have to manage their nation’s national interest and power politics. Therefore, a nation’s actions depend on its leader’s interpretation of power. For example, liberals believe in intervening in other countries to help improve their societies and stop human rights violations (like USA’s war on Afghanistan in 2003) and realists believe in protectionist policies that only focus on their country and not others (like Trump’s withdrawing of troops from Afghanistan in 2019).

Another critical theory, Marxism, theorised by Karl Marx, contends that power lies with the one who owns the means of production in the territory. He believed that the people of a nation either belonged to the bourgeoisie (owned the means of production) or the proletariat (supply labour and skill). Marx argued that this dichotomous classification of masses explained the capitalist nature of economic societies in modern history and had been used by the bourgeoisie in an attempt to justify imperialism and colonialism as a means of expanding capitalism.

Soft Power
There is a distinction between soft and hard power of states, ability to spread own values, ideas, control over creation and decisions of international institutions, as opposed to military strength and economic pressure. Soft power is believed to be gaining popularity in IR as more constraints to use of hard power appear. The nature of soft power implies that it takes time for it to have an impact but its effects are more long term.

The so called West, western developed countries, is frequently noted to be using soft power, intentionally and unintendedly, to influence the rest of the world for various reasons. Some claim that peace-making, education, economic development, respect of human rights, spread of democracy, humanitarian aid and empowerment of disadvantaged groups worldwide are the final aims, while others believe that these states and individuals can have selfish motives in addition to these aims, such as their own security or wealth. The latter claim tends to be supported by the IR idea of states seeking power and international dominance and definitions of capitalism and market economy in which firms, similarly to states, aim to maximise profit and increase market control and dominance, even if that happens at the expense of others.

In development studies, foreign aid is considered as a helpful and sometimes necessary first step for developing economies to develop their own power, economically, industrially and socially. However, it can also be considered an imperialist strategy of developed countries and large organisations, which serves them more than the developing countries. For example in the 20th century, after decolonisation and during the opposition of capitalism and socialism, western aid to newly formed countries was seen as a way to ensure they would accept similar values and ideas and develop as part of capitalist system, eventually becoming sources of cheap labour and raw materials that might enhance the power and prosperity of developed countries. That system functions best in peacetime when democracies are believed to be less likely to start wars with each other. Consequently, support of the democratisation of countries and of the empowerment and education of their citizens can be seen as an attempt by western countries to preserve their own power and security.

Colonialism and Imperialism
Colonialism and imperialism are often used synonymously, making it difficult to analyse each concept individually. Therefore, their separate definitions must first be established. Colonialism can be defined as a “practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another.” Specifically, this practice entails populations being transferred to new regions, that is people of the coloniser country living as permanent citizens in the colonies, while still maintaining their political and cultural values as before. Imperialism involves “political and economic control over a dependent territory.” It focuses on the means by which a country exerts power over another (be it through sovereignty, colonial settlement or indirect systems of control).

Colonialism is an evolving concept which exists over periods of time and places. However, Marxist scholars have identified a vital distinction: colonialism before the sixteenth century was pre-capitalist in nature, where the colonisation of a country depended on the strength of its military and tactical strategies of the ruler, and after the sixteenth century, termed as ‘modern colonialism,’ colonial empires were built alongside the capitalist systems in Western Europe. Not only did modern colonisers extract resources and wealth from its colonies (like pre-capitalist colonisers), but also attempted to restructure their economic systems in a way that created a parasitic relationship, where most of the colonies’ GDPs (Gross Domestic Product) relied on the exports made to the coloniser countries, making them wholly dependent on them for survival. This created an economic imbalance that worked as a mechanism of growth for capitalism and industrialisation in Europe.

One of the explanations for the rise of European colonialism is the advancement in navigational technology and science. As this gave them power in terms of capital resources and scientific knowledge, European colonisers exploited these advancements by sailing to remote places (under the guise of global interconnectivity), establishing ties with nations and moving large numbers of their citizens to these places. As travel became easier and less costly, political control and sovereignty could now be maintained regardless of geographical location.

The relationship between colonialism and capitalism is best summarised by the world systems theory, developed by Immanuel Wallerstein in 1974. This theory suggests that countries are divided into 3 categories – core, semi-periphery and periphery. The international system is a stable system of relations between the core and periphery states, in that periphery states have lower income and a lesser skilled labor force that therefore depends on exporting labour and natural resources to the core states. This flow was bidirectional – while human capital, in the form of slaves, along with raw materials were exported for secondary stages of production in the core states, the colonies provided a lucrative market for these manufactured European goods. For example, raw cotton was exported from India to Britain to manufacture clothes then sold in India markets, causing India's own cloth production to deteriorate. From this perspective, direct military or political control is no longer required for this level of economic exploitation as no matter the direction the capital or resources travelled, only the coloniser country profited. In other words, this is a representation of capitalism on a macro stage.

In the nineteenth century, when the European empire was at its largest, liberal thought was emerging. Although liberal thinkers defended the concepts of universal equality and self-governance, they continued to endorse imperialism and colonialism. The logic they used to support this thinking was the ‘civilising mission’ – Europeans had a moral responsibility to “civilise” other societies, which required temporary political and economic dependence in order to help colonies become capable enough govern themselves and establish liberal institutions. This was derived from a principal historical theory of societal development; that all societies undergo multiple stages of development before becoming civilised – “from hunting, to herding, to farming and to commerce, a developmental process that simultaneously tracked a cultural arc from “savagery,” through “barbarism,” to “civilisation”.” Concepts of “civilisation, savagery and barbarism” were especially pervasive in the writings in progressive thinkers such as Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill.

Consequences of Western Imperialism and Colonialism
Consequently, it was widely thought that only societies that were capitalist in nature had the relevant abilities to establish institutions of self-government. This logic rationalised foreign imperialism by asserting that civilised states were merely acting in the interests of their colonies by governing them. By extension, imperialism was viewed as a “paternalistic practice of government that exports “civilisation”” instead of a form of political and economic hegemony.

While analysing the British rule in India that lasted nearly 90 years, Marx believed that colonialism was in fact a “progressive force” that modernised a primitive, backward feudalistic society. Even though he disagreed with the unnecessary sufferings, death and destruction at the hands of the East India Company, he believed that this was the only way to “civilise” the “barbaric” nature of Indian village communities that he claimed were laden with degradation, poverty, feudal discrimination and stagnation before the arrival of the British. Although their methods were wrong, Marx asserted that it was necessary to restructure the patriarchal systems of living, as it was a stepping stone towards industrialisation and regeneration of a capitalist economic system in India.

Moreover, this was due to rejection of the concept of cultural pluralism. This means that in territories that conducted cultural activities and practices different from the European way of life or thinking, they appeared primitive, unreasonable and thus needed to be changed instead of recognised and respected. And thus, because they had the resources and power to make this change, Western countries colonised and spread their ideals and cultures. This is one of the reasons why colonialism affected their colonies in ways other than economically – they pervaded every aspect of civilian life and attempted to change it. By using power as a strategy/language, the cultures of the colonisers soon became the cultures of the colonised. Karl Kauntsky, a philosopher, journalist and Marxist from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries who suggested that “imperialism is a relatively permanent relationship structuring the interactions between two types of countries.” In other words, the dynamics between core and periphery states, or the colonisers and the colonies, will continue to exist even when the colonisers are not exerting direct influence.

Anthropology
Anthropology is a discipline that on one hand searches for human diversity and on the other, investigates what humans have in common. This underlying tension leads to descriptions such as ‘the most humanistic of the sciences and the most scientific of the humanities.’ There are different branches within anthropology, but particularly in social and cultural anthropology, the power of the West is notable.

Anthropological Research
The power of the West is most noticeable when one considers the traditional relationship between anthropology and the indigenous people. As Anthropologist Linda Smith clearly argues, ‘the term research is inextricably link with European imperialism and colonialism.’ This could be due to the fact that the origins of the discipline lies in America and Britain but whilst carrying out research, the methodologies that certain anthropologists apply cause discomfort and disrespect to the indigenous people. An Anthropologist was ‘often called upon to provide information and advice to the West in its efforts to manipulate and control the non-Western world’, which in turn became involved in a process of colonisation. An example of this could be the Yanomami people.

The Yanomami people
The Falling Sky is a book written by Kopenawa (alongside Bruce Albert) to illustrate the Western colonisation on the Yanomami people. The Yanomami people live in the Brazilian Amazon. Kopenawa, who is part of the Yanomami, shares his personal experience as a local to express the importance of respecting native rights and preserving their culture. He expresses his fear when the West first approaches their land and adopting their understandings on them – for example, insisting of giving them names and calling them by their names, which to the Yanomami people is considered as insulting a person to call their name in front of them. Moreover, in chapter 10, Kopenawa expresses his rage in the Westerners proclaiming to have discovered this land in the Brazilian Amazon. He claims that the same lie continues today as the westerners have ‘claimed it was empty to take over’ but in fact, ‘this land was never empty in the past and it is no more empty today!’ This demonstrates that the West has portrayed the land as part of their possession and claimed that they have discovered it. This causes huge discomfort to the local people and more importantly, it alerts to the question of how powerful the West are in producing knowledge.

Evaluating the power of the West in producing knowledge
Westerners have often been the pioneers in providing knowledge in different fields and especially in Anthropology there has always been a constant phenomenon of the West and the rest. However, from the example of the Yanomami people it is worth contemplating on the power the West has in producing knowledge and why that is the case. Perhaps, as Smith suggests, the researches belief in the ideology that they are the ‘natural representatives' of the indigenous people 'when they work in their communities.' By adopting such a perspective whilst carrying out research is dangerous as it could alter the credibility of the knowledge that is produced. It is therefore worth noticing the power the West has not only in research but also in producing knowledge that is available to a wider audience and to what extent this knowledge is true.

Minority Rights
In the 1960s to 70s, the issue of prejudice and discrimination towards minorities gained rapid global momentum. Many countries reached a formal consensus on the issues of discrimination and minority protection, and protection from discrimination suddenly became a “world right”. John D. Skrentny, professor of sociology, names this period of rapid growth of nondiscrimination rights the “Minority Rights Revolution”, which he explores from an American-focused perspective in his book The Minority Rights Revolution. Establishment of minority rights is one of the democratic approaches to handling an ethnically diverse population (as opposed to non-democratic methods such as “genocide, assimilation, or population control” that have been practiced up till the 1970s in America ). At first glance, the purpose of minority rights is simple: to protect those who are members of a minority groups and prevent erasure of minority cultures. It appears to be a positive movement, demonstrating the power of the West in empowering disadvantaged groups within their communities.

Problems of the Effectiveness of Minority Rights
Though good in concept, the efficacy of minority rights quickly become questionable when examined closely. Minority rights are the protection of rights for minorities, but it has been noted by many that an integral problem is the lack of a definition of what actually constitutes as a minority group. Some experts even claim that there is an apparent avoidance towards providing a clear definition of minority “wherever possible”. This begs the question: What is a minority? Perhaps it is something that seems obvious, the classification “minority” often strikes a certain image in our minds - for example, in late twentieth century America, the paradigmatic minority were African Americans, perhaps true even today in many western countries - however, ambiguity becomes very problematic when present in legal instruments as it raises questions of who is entitled to these rights. as these dubieties often return the power of decision making onto the state and the majority group. The perpetuation of power imbalance between minority and majority due to these shortcomings can be demonstrated through French Sociologist Collette Guillaumin’s approach to the definitions of these groups: “Membership of a majority is based on the latitude to deny that one belongs to a minority. It is conceived as a freedom in the definition of oneself, a freedom which is never granted to members of minorities and which they are not in a position to give to themselves.”

Besides the confusion around the target of which these rights are applied to, the rights itself are often articulated in a vague manner. Below are excerpts the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by the Council of Europe.


 * ''Article 4
 * ''1. The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited.
 * ''2. The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities.


 * ''Article 6
 * ''1. The Parties shall encourage a spirit of tolerance and intercultural dialogue and take effective measures to promote mutual respect and understanding and co-operation among all persons living on their territory, irrespective of those persons' ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity, in particular in the fields of education, culture and the media.


 * ''Article 14
 * 2. In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally or in substantial numbers, if there is sufficient demand, the Parties shall endeavour to ensure, as far as possible and within the framework of their education systems, that persons belonging to those minorities have adequate opportunities for being taught the minority language or for receiving instruction in this language.

At first, it seems uncontroversial. Yet when considered in a more pragmatic sense, what do phrases such as “where necessary”, “substantial numbers”, “sufficient demand”, “as far as possible”, “effective” or “adequate measures” truly mean? Questions arise of who decides what is necessary or substantial and what is the measure of adequacy or effectiveness.

Apart from the vague terms of measure, many descriptions of the actual rights themselves are difficult to fully conceptualize. Such as “encourage a spirit of tolerance” or even “full and effective equality”. Though many in the modern world demand equality for all persons, the truth is that there is no consensus on the definition of “equality”; different individuals who believe in equality also can have vastly conflicting opinion on the methods to step towards equality. The ambiguity in which minority rights have been articulated provides states with a “great margin of appreciation” in the implementation of these laws, making it difficult to contest or question the state’s efforts in upholding these conventions. Furthermore, the monitoring of state compliance is largely reported by the state itself, further demonstrating how the power of deciding the terms of minority rights are ultimately held by the majority who are already in power.

Then, moving away from semantics, comes the shortcomings of minority rights as a whole. Minority interests are almost always far more complex than what is willing to be addressed by minority rights. The determination of the interests of minorities is merely through a projection of idealised conceptions of the state’s own goals rather than coming from minorities themselves. Minority rights also group many minorities, all of which have varied cultures and goals, into one entity and making drastic assumptions and overgeneralisations about them as a whole and therefore ultimately being unable to truly address the concerns and needs of minority groups.

Western Imperialist Propaganda in Media
Disclaimer: Some of the articles referenced may have graphic images. Please view them at your own discretion.

Media
‘Media’ is a term often used in a multiplicity of different disciplines including life sciences, art, computing and more. However, in this day and age, the word is arguably used most prevalently in the field of communication as technological advancements enhance the need for a discipline as such. The power of the West in mainstream media is not entirely conspicuous, but surely heavily present. This will be examined through a case study of modern Western propaganda: the Uyghur concentration camps.

History of Propaganda
‘Propaganda’ is biased information that is presented to the public with the aim of influencing a party into executing specific actions. This mechanism holds the power of strategic persuasion (often through language) which can also ultimately lead to indirect coercion. Historically, the word dates back to as early as the 15th century. Since then, the context in which the word is utilised has shifted over the centuries where it was primarily used in a religious context, and then in the 18th and 19th century a military context and now more contemporarily in a political context. In most global History education systems, it is most famously studied in a military context where propaganda machines and campaigns populated (such as during the World Wars I and II). As the society becomes more digitised, propaganda takes on a more modern form and has advanced to be quite subtle in nature, and can therefore be quite difficult to spot (compared to propaganda posters found in the 18th and 19th centuries).



Modern Western Propaganda in Digital Media
As of lately, social media is a platform that various activists engage with to raise awareness about silenced or crucial issues. This is done very effectively as it is able to alert others globally and almost with just a few taps on the screen. However, that advantage can also be manipulated into spreading sensationalised misinformation, even at the viewer’s own discretion. Many avid social media users and even researchers and international bodies attest to the emergence of an ‘infodemic’. Infomedic is the digital plague of mis- and disinformation and the term has been used within the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the fake news surrounding it. Another infodemic that exists simultaneously is the potential disinformation about Uyghur concentration camps in Xinjiang.

About Uyghurs
The Uyghurs are mostly of Muslim Turkic ethnicity and are culturally associated with Central Asia. They are populated around the world from China to Uzbekistan to Kyrgyzstan to Kazakhstan to Turkey to Australia and more. Their relationship with Xinjiang in China is historically rooted and dates back to as far as the 9th century. '''

Western Media’s Take
There has been a flood of articles about the Uyghur concentration camps that have been spreading across the internet. A number of news outlets are accusing China of allegedly subjecting over one million Uyghurs of Xinjiang to severe torture, violence and punishments in these concentration camps. . According to many news outlets, this is done because the Chinese government is said to be rooted with religious oppression coupled with their desire to control the population numbers. Some of the more popular articles on that matter include: graphic images (claiming to have been taken in the camps themselves) and some testimonies from Chinese Uyghurs. Their alleged acts of China against the Uyghur people include but are not limited to: forced sterilisation, forced feeding of pork and alcohol, rape, demolition of mosques and etc. These articles have also reached mainstream media and social media where this perspective proliferates among the general public. Many social media postings claim that it is a ‘cultural genocide’ in which the death count has surpassed the Holocaust (see: #UyghurGenocide on Twitter). Those articles and postings have gained great traction recently through mainly social media sharing — so much so that the viewers coming across a flood of them are bound to believe it without hesitance and share them almost absent-mindedly. This has resulted in the demonisation of China in the international community (especially on the internet), calling them ‘monstrous’.

Counter arguments Against Western Media’s Take
However, there are many speculations suggesting that Western media is making most of these accusations up. China has admitted to opening re-education camps, however they say that they are used to counter the extremist indoctrination. These detention centres in Xinjiang became more relevant during the mid- and late-1900s. This was because during those times, “religious extremism made further inroads into Xinjiang [...] soon blended with terrorism to stir up social unrest in the region, seriously undermining local stability and security” which was further exacerbated by the rise of the Al-Qaeda. These extremist groups claimed to want to “unite under the moon-and-star banner” in the ‘name of Islam’, but were only “deceitfully used people's ethnic identity and religious belief” to harness power over the region, and then the world. Back then, many of the Uyghur people were indoctrinated and brainwashed with religious fanaticism, separatism and terrorism in the name of ‘Jihad’ (holy war) which led to a rise in a violence in the region, which is said to have been curbed nowadays due to the re-education centres.

It is said that they are doing this to propel the yellow peril propaganda and foster public and united hatred against China as they are seen as a political ‘threat’ to the West (especially the United States). This is said to be done as a means to justify waging a war and imposing sanctions against China. The reason for targeting Xinjiang is because of its geographical, historical and economic significance to China — with their rich natural resources and diverse ethnic groups inhabiting the region. If sanctions are to be held against them, this will cause China to halt their Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) that invests in support trade between over 70 countries in Asia. Many have also criticised the source of these “credible reports” written to the United Nations (UN) and the “Xinjiang experts” reporting on this matter. The “chilling stories” of some Uyghurs that describe their own horrific experience at a concentration camp are also being criticised. Some sources argue that these specific people are almost always the same seven to eight individuals are testifying and propagating the Western bias. Other testimonies reported in Chinese sources say that: Uyghurs claim to have been “saved” by the Chinese government through vocational training at these re-education centres. There are many other non-Western articles that contest the Western media’s portrayal of the re-education centres and of China in general. In fact, there has been praise directed at the Chinese government for these re-education camps. According to some sources, the poverty rate in Xinjiang has decreased from 6.1% in 2018 to 1.2% in 2019 (which surpasses UN’s goal of poverty eradication by 2030); and the people of Xinjiang including the Uyghurs are said to be prospering economically and socially.

Power of Western Media
These particular claims and articles debunking false claims of the camps are being shot down and rejected by the Western media, despite there being substantial evidence against Western media’s claims. Ultimately, this demonstrates the power that Western media holds over non-Western reports and how deeply influential they are in the global community and mainstream media. With social media, these power-hungry entities can often take advantage of the herd mentality that is embedded within the online community, enabling further spread of mis- and disinformation. As younger generations are born into a digitalised society, they are more susceptible to believing headlines no matter how false or true which plays a role in the fuelling of media's power. Many non-Western news outlets report and claim that Western media is becoming "increasingly ideological" — by boldly manipulating the truth and propelling a false narrative that fits their own set of values and beliefs, overshadowing others that contradict them. Arguably, it is not done in much of a clandestine manner because the Western media are well-aware of their dominant position within the discipline and industry of media.

Furthermore, it shows how sensationalist language as a strategic form of power is very notable and can cause the viewer to immediately attach negative connotations to something without further thought. In the context of Uyghur concentration camps, this is seen with the popular phrase of “Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps”. Despite China lawfully labelling them “re-education centres”, many Western headlines would often opt for the former due to the word choice being more dramatic, appealing to the reader’s pathos and giving the article more shock value. This gives journalists incentive to stray from being objective in their news reports. Although the Western hegemony in media is undeniably present, it is crucial that the public are critical of every source presented to them to ensure they are not indoctrinated by any form of bias. Doing so will allow the power dynamics within the media between the West and the non-West to be more balanced, and enable the people to reach closer to the truth of the situation.

Western Media's Biases and Portrayal of Africa
In the 1970s, from two decades of independence, Africa was in a state of economic underdevelopment. Theorists explained this phenomena with the theory of dependency which posits that underdeveloped countries are dependent on developed countries to export resources from the underdeveloped country through trade, and the development of the underdeveloped country is dependent on the growth of the country it relies on exports. This situation was perceived as a 'crisis’ in Africa by the West.

Throughout the years, from the 16th to the 19th century, missionaries, merchants and colonizers from the West distributed information about the state of ‘crisis’ that they perceived. As technology and global communication advanced, the distribution of biased perceptive information occurred through mediums such as the newspaper, television and internet. As the West colonized Africa in the process of exporting the resources, the theory of dependency highlights that Africa was ‘dependent’ on the West, and this resulted in people dividing the nations as the one country had the power of affecting another country’s development. This strategic relationship between two nations to further develop the economy through trade began to construct perspectives and subjectivities that the West’s system and culture was better.

These current subjectivities arise from the past relationship of the perceieved nation in power, and the underdeveloped nation’s dependency in the form of colonization and slave trade. While this was a subjective perception collectively thought of as a nation as a whole, such perceptions can 'permeate’ into an individual's mind, whether consciously or unconsciously. When individuals such as journalists or academics spread information, they act as a medium of further spreading biased perspectives of superiority. The individual may or may not have visited Africa or experienced its culture and system, yet a congruence bias causes individuals to over rely on existing cognitions and perspectives they hold on Africa such as the existence of dependency and slavery in the past, and tend to neglect alternative information such as development.

Western reports of news which may indicate that occurrences in Africa are ‘irrational’ are often a result of ignorance by a lack of contextual and historical analysis. This further reinforces perceptive subjectivities as a result of a confirmation bias, where individuals such as journalists have the tendency to seek for information that supports pre-existing cognitions and beliefs, hence neglecting other information such as a historical context as an explanation for a conflict in Africa. The medium sharing the information is subject to confirmation bias and does not communicate an unbiased view of the existing conditions or conduct appropriate examinations of the context.

Furthermore, the internal priorities of news outlets vary the resources they are willing to use for different issues which consequently varies the media coverage. In 1994, there was the Rwandan conflict which was a genocide that occurred in Rwanda. There was less awareness of the incidents that signalled the conflict because there was less media coverage due to priorities. Two tribes, Batutsi and Bahutus, had constant rivalry which became violent and cost people their lives, but there was no media coverage on this. On the 6th of April in 1994, the plane carrying both the Rwandan and Burundian presidents was shot and both presidents were killed and this was the breaking point which led the two tribes to slaughter each other. Around the same time, Nelson Mandela’s inauguration was to take place, and the UN withdrew the military troops from Somali due to soldiers and citizens losing their lives over the Somali Crisis. The news outlets prioritized the news of Nelson Mandela’s inauguration and the UN’s withdrawal from Somali that there were very few journalists in Rwanda to collect information and report it. The Western media’s perspective of what was more important news due to their subjectivities led to less resources being used to understand the context of the Rwandan conflict to its roots, thus less media coverage. Afterwards, there was media coverage about the conflict, but it did not include information about the context building towards the incident because they did not have the information from prioritizing different news. Instead, the cholera epidemic in Africa brought attention to the news, furthermore sharing a biased focus on the representation of Africa as a nation to the public. The information being spread itself is limited, consequently making the public retain limited knowledge about Africa. This is a result of constructed subjectivities and biases from the perception of power by the Western media which strengthens their nation's ability to use power as a strategy to further continue the existing international power structures of dominance.

Power of Money through Economies and Nations
Money is a socially developed construct of power. It is completely human-made and is classified as valuable. Through an economic understanding, money is the medium in which humans exchange goods or services, and is a unit of account as different goods and services are measured in their value in one currency. Through a sociological understanding, money claims one's value within the society through classifying their ‘status and social privilege’. Through a psychological understanding, money is an entity which provides ‘physical and psychological security’ and this manifests as money is the key necessity to promote human well-being and sustain human welfare. Through a political understanding, money is an advantage and promotes the ability to influence the public and provides a political authority. Through a military science understanding, money is the foundation of developing defence strategies and arms to strengthen the military of a nation. Money is able to convert into different forms of social power as it has the ability to exchange into different needs. It can be exchanged for military support, fame, security, services, and so on. Money is a tool that gives an individual or a nation the power to protect itself. Having possession of the power from money provides the privilege to choose, enforce and influence.

Money is a ‘social organization’ that has established its power through the conventions of its use through identifying varying values of different amounts of money. Money is institutionalized through the privilege of its ownership in the forms of banks to store money, taxes to redistribute money, issuing of money, minting coins and accounting money usage. As society grew, it became more complex as it developed components of society including, but not limited to finance, governance, education, medical care, transport, communication, production and trade. The control and possibility of these systems are collectively through the nation’s wealth which is achieved through money, and in turn of investing this money into different systems, the nation becomes more powerful as the investment returns with an increase in money, improving the economy, and strengthening the nation’s services.

Power of Money in a Patriarchal Society and in Social Status
The formation of a patriarchal society wherein men predominantly hold the power in a society developed as the concept that a male breadwinner is able to sufficiently support his family. By the 1910s, a male breadwinner that earned money to support the household became the ideal norm, even if it was not the existing reality at the time. Families at a high social status were able to be supported through a single person, the husband, earning money, yet families of middle and low social status would not have been able to sustain if there was only one person earning money. Instead, children of the family, whether male or female, would work to earn money, but the wife was designated the role of a ‘homemaker’ and it was perceived as ‘disgracing’ the husband and violating his authority if the wife would work. While families had the need of more people earning within the family, they rarely sought for the wife to work because of the ideal developed by the high social status people. The power that people in a high social status got from being able to sustain themselves with sufficient money earned by one person formed a social authority towards the system and they were able to influence norms on the society. Even if families needed a working wife, due to the power of the high status individuals with sufficient money, other families in the society became conditioned to follow their ideals and norms. Overall in the society, the families earning sufficient money had the power to influence, and individually specific to a family, the male breadwinner had the power to make decisions as the head of the family due to being the one that earned the money to support the family.

Power of Money in Workplaces
Abuse of power in a workplace, according to a study by Joseph Grenny and David Maxfield, has been experienced by 96% of the participants in the study in various forms. Specific to the form of abuse of power as indirect institutionalized coercion, people in authority, that are at a higher position in the hierarchy of a workplace and earn more money, can abuse their power through creating a system and environment with the impression that their subordinates must not retaliate as it will in consequence worsen their situation. This hierarchy developed on the ultimate difference of money earned can develop a structure of organizational chaos. Power abusers display that disregarding any abuse will be better for the victim that is relatively powerless. The abuser does not present the choice that it is acceptable for the victim to retaliate, and only presents the choice that they must bear any abuse. Furthermore, the study found that 20% of the participants that acted against the abuse, and defied the authoritative figure faced a loss of more that 7 hours of working time in week which consequently results in lost wages. The consequence of defying a superior that earns more money, is that ultimately, the victim loses money. The dynamic of money in this system enforces that people holding more money hold the power.

Power of Money in Crime
Individuals or organizations that commit low level crimes such as petty theft, driving violations, are sentenced with fines in the majority of the cases. Furthermore, in serious crimes, individuals or organizations can be sentenced with a period of time in prison along with a fine, and in a very high level crimes, as of 2015 in the UK, the sentence can include an unlimited fine. As a result of one’s actions, the court has the power as an authoritative body and can make individuals face the consequences of their actions through facing a punishment whether the individual wants to experience it or not. The court has the power of direct coercion to sentence a punishment, and one of the most common forms of punishment include fines. It is apparent through this system that paying an amount of money for violating a law is an effective punishment. This punishment enforces defendants in one aspect to not violate the law or conduct illegal behaviour again as they would prefer to avoid the loss of more of their money. The quantity of the fines are relative to the severity of the crime, and this enforces people to further not commit severe crimes as they would consequently have to lose more money through higher fines. The fines are varied according to the defendant’s income so that defendants of the same crime with varying ‘financial circumstances’ can face an equally impacting punishment. As people commit crimes, they have to pay money as fines, and through intricate interactions, this system enforces a wider network of power where the society conforms to following the law to avoid the consequences of losing their own individual power in the society from losing their money.

A defendant can obtain a bail which is an agreement with the court in the form of a recognisance. This means that a defendant provides a guarantee of money with the court to be released from custody while awaiting trial. The bail money is with the court so that the defendant follows the bail conditions such as following a curfew, not consuming alcohol, refraining from visiting certain places or people, and being electronically tagged to be able to surveille the location of the defendant. This system enforces defendants to conform with the conditions set by the authoritative court in power, even if they otherwise would not have followed a curfew or would have consumed alcohol and so on. This presents how the courts have power as direct coercion and they are able to do this as they take a surety of money from the defendant. To not lose their money, defendants will refrain from violating the bail conditions. As the defendant’s money is with the courts, they are situationally relatively powerless and have to follow the courts instructions.

Power of Money Throughout Society
Ultimately, money represents itself as power in different forms through its ability to exchange into something that is equally valuable. The power of money is present in many different parts of the society such as, but not included to education, transport, nutrition, technology, finance, medical care, communication and housing. Money is needed to be able to further continue the complex network of social systems developed. Humans have constructed a society that follows the dynamic that without money, all is powerless. Similarly, a world without a society of humans to use money and impose power, would consequently signify that money itself would have no value.

Power of Money in Politics
Even in long established democracies, money remains intrinsic to the attainment of political power. For the first time, in the 2008 US presidential race, candidates raised and spent over $1 billion. By 2012, this figure was $2.6 billion. In the recent 2020 election, candidates raised $3.69 billion, with Democratic nominee and eventual winner Joe Biden alone raising over $1.3 billion. Of the vast sums expended the majority (Biden - 80% ; Trump - 66% ) is spent on media used to attain public recognition and garner voter support. While much of this funding comes from regular voters and party funds, a sizeable amount comes either directly or indirectly from corporations and/or individuals with their own political agendas. In the United States this is in part enabled by a landmark 1976 Supreme Court that effectively ruled that limiting spending on election campaigns constituted a contravention against the First Amendment right to free speech.

The ability to theoretically contribute unlimited sums of money threatens the freedom and fairness of elections by effectively enabling those with greater financial means to have a more substantial influence on voter choice. Worryingly most of these contributions also come with implied rewards, such as government contracts or funding, beneficial legislative changes, increased business from political candidates, and even a position on political committees.

It is clear then, that money can be used to gain an increased voice or presence in politics, or obtain a level of special treatment. To counter this, most modern democracies require the identities of donors be disclosed, which understandably results in media and public inquiry regarding the motives of said donations. Subsequently, lawmakers often attempt to introduce reformative regulations, like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the Federal Elections Campaign Act, but these are repeatedly met with litigation from moneyed interests such as in the case of Citizens United v. FEC. Even with new regulation, political financiers continue to find new legal loopholes to facilitate further contentious donations. In the US, this has occurred with the development of PACs, 527 groups and SuperPACs. Thus an endless cycle is created, where ever-innovative methods for attaining political power through financial means are created to combat currently failing attempts at regulation. Even with oversight and critique from international organisations, such as The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, and various media outlets, the influence of money in politics looks set to continue globally.

Power Distance Index as a Tolerance of Power Structures
Hofstede categorized trends in different societies as cultural dimensions, and one cultural dimension is the Power Distance Index (PDI). The two extreme ends of the index are individualistic and collectivistic. Individualism is a trend in a society where people form their identity as an individual and they prioritize the values of the individual. Collectivism is where people form their identity as part of a social group and they prioritize the values of the group over an individual. ‘Self-sufficiency, competitiveness and personal achievements’ are valued in individualistic cultures while they are not regarded as valuable in collectivistic cultures over social responsibility. Individualistic cultures distribute power and influence of decisions or change equally among each individual and do not tolerate inequality, while collectivistic cultures are hierarchical in nature and tolerate inequality as it is a part of the social hierarchy system. With this extreme difference, the PDI measures the tolerance of uneven distribution in the society. Thus, individualistic cultures have low PDI scores and collectivistic cultures have high PDI scores.

Power Distance Index's Influence on Conformity
In 1967, Berry and Katz conducted a study between participants that belonged to an individualistic culture (Inuit people) and collectivistic culture (Tenme people). The study sought to understand the difference in behaviour in the context of conformity between the two cultural groups. Conformity is the tendency to follow norms or beliefs established, and in this instance, norms or beliefs by the social group. The study used an Asch paradigm where participants were shown one line at the top of a page, and given 8 lines below. The participants had to identify the line which had an equal length to the line at the top of the page. The researchers told the participants that a majority of people in their social group previously selected a certain line, which was actually incorrect. It was identified significantly that the Inuit (individualistic) people ignored the suggestion and chose a line which they individually believed to be correct while the Tenme (collectivistic) people significantly conformed with the suggestion and made the decision, even if they internally thought it was a different line. They valued conforming to their group and holding the same beliefs as the group more than their individual perspective. A participant also explained that if the group chooses something, then everyone must follow that decision as it is their form of cooperation within the group. In this context, even though the power dynamic in the group presents direct coercion from people choosing an option which they might have not chosen otherwise from their own individual perspective, the culture with a high PDI does not perceive making choices that conform or collective decisions as coercion. The choice to conform is perceived as a natural behaviour for the people in the group. Additionally, power in the group represents itself as a strategy as it constructs subjectivities that one in the group must follow the decisions by the group. Due to the high tolerance of a power structure in the collectivistic society, the people have developed subjectivities as their choices and decisions are influenced by the group’s perception.

Power Distance Index's Influence on Obedience
In collectivistic cultures, at a level of the home environment, power relationships through family dynamics are identified by children. Children in collectivistic cultures remain obedient and do not retaliate while parents hold an authoritative position and may dictate behaviour. This power relationship within a family is further enforced as children observe that other children conduct similar behaviour with their families, and feel that they hold similar beliefs as the people in their social group, developing a sense of social identity for the child. This power dynamic within a family where the parents who are older in age hold the authority is a behaviour that is conformed further by the children as they grow outside the family. In the collectivistic society, older citizens will hold the power to dictate actions for the younger people, and they do not retaliate as it is a norm in the society of the power distribution. This is further applied to a broader context of the society itself where people follow the decisions of the leaders of the social group such as people at a high position in the social hierarchy. The interactions in a power relationship at small levels can correlate and connect to a broader and wider network of power in the society.

Power Distance Index's Influence on Silence
In 2009, Meeuwesen, van den Brink-Muinen and Hofstede conducted a cross-cultural analysis of how a difference in PDI would affect the communication between a patient and a doctor. In collectivistic cultures, doctors are perceived as authoritative people because of their superior medical knowledge. It was found that participants from cultures with a low PDI (individualistic cultures) tend to have consultation sessions that last longer and the conversation between the doctor and patient was more flexible as both would engage in the conversation. In contrast, participants from cultures with a high PDI (collectivistic cultures) tend to have shorter consultation sessions due to less irrelevant or unexpected information being shared, and participants would choose not to engage in a conversation with the doctor, which means that only the doctor would be explaining about the medical condition to the patient. This shows that societies that tolerate power structures represent the authority of people in a hierarchy by the people that are less powerful in the power relationship being silenced. As a strategy, presence of power in a society manifests as a strategy. Ultimately, people that are less powerful in the power relationship remain silent. Children stay obedient to their parents, they listen to the elders in the society, they do not question a doctor, they remain silent and do not retaliate. This is in contrast to individualistic cultures with low PDI wherein there is a low presence of power relationships and power is distributed equally. This allows them to retaliate to their parents, not listen to their elders, react to doctors, and voice their own individual perspective. While it may be perceived that people in collectivistic cultures oppress their perspectives, the people instead feel it natural to share similar beliefs, and hence similar perspectives as the group. Their perspective of what to choose and what to decide ultimately changes because of their perception of what is socially responsible. It is not an oppression of their perspectives, it is an influence of their perspectives. Tolerance of power in a social group enforces holding similar perspectives to the other members of the group, and as part of this process, people can be silenced as remaining silent in particular situations is perceived as appropriate and a norm that is shared among the members of the social group.

Power Distance Index's Influence on Performance in Empowerment
In 1999, Eylon and Au conducted a study to analyze the trend between empowerment in a workplace, work satisfaction, and work performance between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. It was found that while participants from both cultures were satisfied when empowered in a workplace (put in a position of power such as a team leader), the work performance was significantly different. The findings were that participants from individualistic cultures showed no difference in work performance than usual, whether they were in a place of power or not, their work performance was ultimately the same. However, the work performance of participants from collectivistic cultures decreased. When they were placed in a place of power, they underperformed from their abilities when not empowered. This research signifies that people from social groups with high PDI scores tend to perform better when disempowered. This includes having structured work where the responsibilities of the assignment are explicit. This shows the conditioning of people that tolerate power structures to apply similar dynamics in their work place. As a child grows up, they follow the behaviour dictated by the parents, and listen to the orders by elders, and of the leader of the social group. The obedience and nature of following instructions is applied to the workplace where they are told what their responsibilities are, and what to do in a task, and they follow those guidelines. The difference in work performance is due to the low exposure of situations and experiences where members of collectivistic cultures can make decisions dynamically and individually without having to ensure that other people agree with the decision. In contrast, members from individualistic cultures are exposed to experiences where they can make their own individual decisions, and this allows individuals to work with their ability without the constraint of the perspectives of others in the group. Thus, their work performance remains the same on the sole basis of their ability and skill. The conditioning of a power system strategises itself as it forms an individual’s behaviour and perception. Small scale learning of respecting positions of power through obedience evolves to be applied in a larger network of power such as completing a task, formation of responsibilities and work performance.

As the difference in tolerance of power in a social group exhibits differences in conformity, submission, obedience and performance, this correlates to a significant relationship that power only has the power to influence people if you give it power and importance in the society.