The Three Faces of Power
May Samali exposes the Iranian Government’s denial of higher education to Baha’i students.
The concept of power is fundamental to political science.
According to American political scientist Amy Allen, power features three distinct senses: power-over, power-to and power-with. Power-over is the ability of an actor to constrain the choices available to another actor. Power-to is the ability of an individual actor to attain an end or a series of ends. Power-with is the ability of a collectivity to act together for the attainment of a common end. Each type of power relation represents a particular modality of power, which may be present in any one situation at the same time. Although Allen’s integrated theory of power was originally developed to overcome the inadequacies of one-dimensional accounts of feminist power, it is equally applicable to the study of power relations beyond the feminist context.
In this article, Allen’s tripartite account of power relations is used as a framework to analyse a discriminatory policy enacted by the Iranian Government against the 350,000 member Baha’i community, the largest non-Islamic religious minority in the country. The policy concerns the Iranian Government’s denial of higher education to Baha’is in Iran. This policy was revealed in a confidential memorandum of the Iranian Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Revolutionary Council in 1991, which stated: “Baha’i’s cannot enroll in universities and higher education centres.” This policy was implemented against the background of the Islamic government’s constant and ongoing persecution of Baha’is in Iran.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, Baha’is have been subjected to attack, intimidation and discrimination, solely on account of their religious beliefs. However, recent media accounts of the situation of the Iranian Baha’is focus solely on the Islamic government’s power over the Baha’i population. Such a narrow conceptualisation of power overlooks the different elements of power in this situation. Therefore, Allen’s second and third senses of power serve as analytical tools to explain the power of individual Baha’is to resist government policies and the power that Baha’is collectively exercise with one another.
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, Baha’is have been subjected to attack, intimidation and discrimination, solely on account of their religious beliefs.
I. Power Over
By strategically constraining the actions of Baha’is through the implementation of a discriminatory policy, the Iranian Government exercises power over Baha’is. This educational policy in Iran can be analysed through the lens of domination, which is a particular application of power understood as power-over. Domination is the ability of an actor or set of actors to constrain the choices of another actor or set of actors in a non-trivial way that works to the others’ disadvantage.
The Iranian Government’s ability to prevent Baha’is from attending institutions of higher education, which creates educational disadvantage, represents power as domination. The first piece of evidence, which substantiates the idea that Baha’i students are subjects of religious domination, is the fact that 191 Baha’is were denied entry to university in 2006, solely on the basis of their religious identity. Second, out of the 178 Baha’i students admitted to universities for the 2006/2007 academic year, 70 were expelled in March 2007, when the universities concerned became aware of their religion. Diane Ala’i, representative of the Baha’i International Community (BIC) at the United Nations in Geneva, states: “those who have been expelled or denied registration at the university of their choice clearly indicate the issue is their Baha’i identity.”
The policy adopted by the Iranian government entrenches a relationship of domination. It ensures that Baha’is are excluded or expelled from universities, either in the admission process or during the course of their studies, once their religious affiliation becomes known. Furthermore, the policy of the Iranian Government, which pressures Baha’i students to convert to Islam in order to receive tertiary education, is indicative of the Iranian Government’s intent to destroy the Baha’i community.
Therefore, recent policies have established the means by which the Iranian government may exercise power over Baha’is. However, this is not an adequate basis upon which to conclude that Baha’is in Iran, as the subjects of domination, are without power in general. To claim that Baha’is in Iran are altogether ‘powerless’ is to ignore the theoretical resources required for an adequate conceptualisation of Baha’i resistance to domination. An analysis of power relations through the lens of domination reveals only one side of the story.
II. Power-To
In order to understand adequately the power that individual Baha’is exercise as a response to domination by the Iranian Government, it is necessary to view power through the lens of resistance. The reluctance of Baha’is in Iran to renounce their religious faith in order to gain admittance to institutions of higher education or to qualify for identification cards represents resistance, which is a particular application of power understood as power-to. Resistance is the ability of an individual actor to attain an end, or a series of ends, that serve to subvert domination. In this case study, individual defiance is explained by the idea that, in the Baha’i faith, the false declaration of one’s religion is tantamount to the denial of one’s faith.
The resistance of individual Baha’i students to the Iranian Government policy is demonstrated by their active refusal to be listed as ‘Muslims’ in university application forms. Although Baha’is are repeatedly offered relief from discrimination in exchange for a conversion to Islam, they refuse to recant their faith.
Ultimately, the refusal of Iranian Baha’i’s to recant their faith in order to gain university entrance serves to subvert domination. The resistance exemplified by individual Baha’is highlights the significant role of individual agency in undermining the government’s efforts to eradicate the Baha’i Faith in Iran. This case study also confirms the fact that domination and resistance, as different forms of power, should not be regarded as opposed to one another. This is because the relationship of domination has also empowered Baha’is, by positioning them as subjects who are endowed with the capacity to act.
Michel Foucault’s theory of power highlights this dialectical interplay between power-over and power-to in all power relations. Therefore, the application of Allen’s approach to power as resistance is useful for understanding how members of subordinated groups, such as Iranian Baha’is, retain the power to act despite their subordination. However, it is also necessary to consider the power that emerges from collective resistance to domination.
III. Power-With
The collective response of Iranian and international Baha’i communities, as well as civil society groups and foreign governments, to the situation of the Baha’is in Iran can be labelled as power-with. Power-with is the sense that informs Hannah Arendt’s definition of power as “the human ability not just to act but to act in concert”. Since the 1980s, various organisations and governments have pressured the Iranian Government to reverse its discriminatory policies against Baha’is. The ability of this collectivity to act together for the attainment of this common end represents solidarity, which signifies a particular application of power understood as power-with.
Individuals can be both dominated and empowered at the same time.
Exclusive solidarity, which is limited to groups suffering from oppression, is epitomised by the collective actions of the Iranian Baha’i community, which has established the Baha’i Institute for Higher Education (BIHE). BIHE is an independent, full-fledged, yet completely decentralised, university system, run by Bahá’í teachers, professionals and volunteers for Baha’i students. This underground university represents the creative and wholly non-violent response of Iranian Baha’is to the systematic denial of access to higher education. Through the international network of Baha’i communities, the BIHE has also established the means by which its graduates will be recognised by more than 25 institutions of higher education outside Iran. Therefore, this example of collective resistance substantiates Allen’s argument that “having power-with presupposes having power-to”, as the collective capacity of Iranian Baha’is to act to attain the shared end of higher education presupposes Baha’is having the individual capacity to resist the discriminatory government policy in the first place.
On the other hand, the ability of Baha’is to work with international organisations and foreign governments to achieve collective goals represents inclusive solidarity. Inclusive solidarity accommodates individuals or groups who develop common causes with oppressed groups. For example, almost every year since 1982, the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution on the human rights situation in Iran, which has expressed “serious concern” for the denial of higher education for Baha’i’s in Iran. In addition, the United States Congress has passed Senate and House Resolutions that call for the emancipation of Baha’is in Iran. As specific evidence of solidarity, Provision 2(c) of Senate Concurrent Resolution 101 in 2006 requests the U.S. President to “initiate an active and consistent dialogue with other governments and the European Union” in order to persuade the Iranian government to rectify its discriminatory policies against Baha’is. Therefore, this broader collectivity is bound together not by a shared identity, but by the promise to work together to attain certain political goals.
The ultimate goal of the collectivity is to reverse the policy against Baha’is in Iran, rather than to put Baha’is in a position to exact revenge against the Iranian Government. Power is generated when individuals act in concert to overcome domination by another party, regardless of whether such an objective is actually achieved. Therefore, the fact that collective action has not led to change in government policy in Iran does not undermine the power of the collectivity. Arendt proposes that “power springs up between people” simply because “they act together”. Therefore, simply by remaining together, individuals in the collectivity “keep alive” power, an idea that is ignored under a narrow definition of power as domination. Alternatively, the conception of power as power-with offers a dimension of power that is more compatible with notions of empowering human relationships.
Conclusion
Allen’s three senses of power encourage a more holistic understanding of the power play between the Iranian Government and the Baha’i population. Conceptualising power in this multi-dimensional way not only illuminates the diverse experiences of Baha’is with power, but also highlights the inadequacy of approaches that investigate only one side of power. A one-sided approach renders each conception of power incapable of making sense of the complex power relations in contemporary society, which are such that individuals can be both dominated and empowered at the same time. The ultimate conclusion is that power-over, power-to, and power-with are not ontologically exclusive, for all three can be manifest in one and the same interaction. As proven by the case study, Allen’s three senses of power represent analytically distinguishable features of a single situation.
