Power and inequality have been closely intertwined phenomena throughout human history. In one respect, power is an inherent capability of human nature. Without power, humans would not be able to do anything. At the same time, the differences in power between individuals provide a basis for creating and/or increasing inequality within groups and societies, including in the distribution of power. Thus, power and inequality feed on each other. The interplay between power and inequality has shaped human societies from their earliest beginnings, making them more or less hierarchical, autocratic, unequal, exploitative, and oppressive. However, while creating societies without inequality and power differences may be a pipe dream, the qualifier “more or less” is very significant in this context. It can make the difference between reasonably liveable societies and unbearable suffering for many or most people. Therefore, this theme should be considered one of the most important for people who aspire to create better societies.1
What is power?
The concept of power has been defined and interpreted in many different ways, as discussed on a separate page. I define power as the capacity to give consequence to one’s choices. It refers to the ability to do something to make things happen. Power refers to the means needed to achieve or advance something. This applies to anything people want to do, however essential or trivial. Lacking the means makes them powerless. This highlights that power is not necessarily a bad thing. All people need power to live. Things become problematic when the means or resources that underpin power are distributed (very) unequally and when accumulated power, in different forms, is used to exploit and oppress people.
Enduring sources of power inequality
To some extent, differences in power resources between individuals may be natural, in the sense that they are related to biological or genetic endowment. Arguably, the most extensively discussed example is the differences between men and women. Women, of course, are naturally endowed with the capacity to bring forth new human life, be it with some help from men. On the other hand, on average, men are bigger and stronger than women and have been endowed with far higher levels of testosterone, which can help explain why they are responsible, by far, for most instances of aggression and violence. These differences have their roots in biological evolution. Although their significance may be hotly debated or even denied by those who reject this as a binary way of looking at sex and sexuality, they cannot simply be ignored (as recognised by those who choose transsexual change with the help of hormonal treatments and physical operations). These differences are likely to have played a significant role in differentiating the roles of males and females from the earliest stages of human society. And in some respects, they can still be considered natural grounds for (the development of) different capabilities, tendencies and preferences between men and women.
However, what significance is, or should be, attached to these biological differences between men and women depends on society. Although role differentiation between men and women appears to have been a common feature of human societies from the earliest times, this does not mean, for instance, that women have always been assigned less status and power or been subordinate to men. There is evidence that, in some hunter-gatherer societies, women held positions of higher status and power than men. However, in the course of history, matriarchal societies were gradually replaced by patriarchal societies, in which power was increasingly concentrated in the hands of male rulers (kings), whose positions became hereditary. This development was accompanied by a significant increase in inequality (also among men) within these societies, with slavery becoming a common phenomenon. As a rule, women were subordinated to or even regarded as the property of men, while most men and women were exploited by relatively small groups, elites, or classes.
Taking a broad sweep at history, what seems striking is the extent to which many people (“the masses”) appear to have resigned themselves to being treated unequally and did not challenge the existing order. One reason for this may be that most people accepted the dominant view that the existing order was ordained by God and/or was the natural state of affairs that could not be changed, a view long cultivated by the ruling classes. As discussed elsewhere, the debate about human nature is ongoing and biological differences between people continue to be used as a justification for differential treatment in many societies. Although there remains scope for different explanations of why and how women’s inequality emerged and continues to emerge, we now know that the degree of inequality in societies is not God-given or natural, but varies across societies and can be altered.
Challenging inequality: an ongoing struggle
Since the Age of Enlightenment, the dominant (hierarchical) view of the world has been heavily contested. The idea that people could improve their lot on Earth took hold of societies. Inequality, oppression, and exploitation were no longer seen as inevitable or natural phenomena but as the result of the accumulation and concentration of power and wealth in societies and as something that could be challenged. This view provided a basis for demands for (revolutionary) political-institutional change, including the introduction of (liberal) democracy, the extension of the right to vote, and economic security and equality. It gave rise to political movements aimed at abolishing capitalism and establishing socialist systems. It also sparked the rise of the women’s movement, leading to the introduction of the right to vote (and to be elected) for women in most countries. In the 20th century, the right of all people to be treated equally was recognised by the adoption of human rights doctrines, which were enshrined in national and international legislation.
However, notwithstanding these developments, inequality, oppression, exploitation, and even slavery are still rife around the world. Although women may have been formally granted equal rights, de facto, the treatment of women and men remains far from equal. In most countries, inequality persists, among others, in the proportion of women in leadership roles, positions of power, and low-paid jobs and the prevalence of pay inequity. While in some countries the number of women in positions of power has increased significantly, in others they are hardly represented in ruling institutions (China being a prime example). Also, women continue to do the lion’s share of childcare and household tasks. Issues of discrimination, sexual abuse, family violence and oppression are still very much alive, even in the so-called developed world. Some may think that the arrow of history points toward the complete emancipation of women and men, but this seems far from guaranteed. Even in high-income countries, there are still different views on the significance of biological differences between the sexes. This remains an ongoing issue or theme that may never be resolved definitively.
The same applies to the degree of inequality in societies generally. Although after WWII inequality in wealth and income across a range of (social-democratic and socialist) countries was significantly reduced, this has been largely undone by the rise of neoliberalism and the restoration of the power of capital at the expense of workers and most employees. As capitalism was restored in most socialist countries and social democracy rolled back in the West, inequality and exploitation returned with a vengeance. With economic globalisation, neoliberalism has been imposed on most countries, weakening the power and capacity of national governments. The benefits of globalisation, mainly in the form of profits from financial trickery and speculation, accrued to a growing class of billionaires, while the costs (stagnating wages, demanding working conditions, and a decline in the provision of free or cheap collective goods and services) were imposed on most other people. These policies, along with the economic crises to which capitalism remains prone, have further exacerbated inequality and socioeconomic hardship, resulting in the resurgence of begging and charity as thriving industries, even in so-called developed countries.
Political consequences of inequality
Not surprisingly, these developments have led to growing social discontent and a loss of faith in governments and political systems. They also created (again) fertile conditions for the growth of extreme-right radicalism and scapegoating, in particular of immigrants. Where this will lead is everyone’s guess. The revival of neofascism does not bode well for liberal democracy. It has already led to the establishment of so-called illiberal democracies and de facto authoritarian governments in a growing number of countries. What seems clear is that governments worldwide are struggling to understand how to address the unfolding and converging economic, social, political, and environmental crises. While demands to reduce inequality have grown, governments remain ideologically entrenched in the dominant political-economic systems that perpetuate mechanisms for the accumulation and concentration of economic power. They appear to lack both the will and the capacity to undertake the fundamental political-economic transformation necessary to manage the global breakdown already unfolding due to these multiple and converging crises, let alone to move towards better, more sustainable societies. At the same time, the political left is also at a loss regarding ideas and viable strategies for fundamental change. The “liberal left” has become preoccupied with identity and gender politics, and the promotion of “wokeness”, issues that divert public attention away from the structural political-economic sources of inequality, socio-political polarisation, and social disintegration, while the “hard left” has lost much of its traditional power base and has been marginalised.
A lesson drawn from the demise of social democracy
While the golden era of social democracy has shown that societies can reduce inequality and advance collective interests, its demise also demonstrates that such gains are prone to reversal if power (in various forms) is not redistributed in ways that prevent it from being (re-)accumulated and concentrated. Social democracy did not dismantle the mechanisms by which this occurred, and still occurs, in capitalist systems. And although socialist systems abolished capitalism, they lacked the democratic safeguards to prevent the emergence of a new political-economic elite and, eventually, a return to capitalism. These developments underscore the crucial importance of extending democracy to the economic realm alongside strengthening democratic political institutions. Only then may it be possible to create a political-economic system that offers a more durable basis for significantly reducing inequality.
To better understand why and how inequality is produced and reproduced, we need to look more closely at the intricate relationships between power and agency, the role of political institutions, particularly states, the role of economics and economic systems, and the interactions between political and economic systems (political-economic systems).