How are the definitions of power relations arrived at?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UP:<[LINK]>

The starting definition is that: <[LINK] -1)>

Power relations are what enable who to do what to whom.

Another way of stating it is that: <[LINK] -2)>

Power relations are the bounded portion of power that gives

agents the ability to act on patients.

{<[LINK]> Vocab: agent, patient}

This tends to hide the multilateral nature of relations however.

A way of making this explicit would be to say: <[LINK] -3)>

Power relations are the bounded portion of power that gives

entities the ability to interact in a particular way.

The bounded portion of power, a latent domain, both generates and

constrains the interaction in addition to affecting the

participant entities. To clarify: <[LINK] -4>

Power relations are the domain of latent power that makes it

possible for entities to interact in a way that temporally

manifests that power among them.

>>>>> PgDn <<<<<< to continue

>>>>> PgUp <<<<<< to go back

If the matrix all the actions and actors possible at any one

instant completely constitute the domain, then the definition may

be stated more simply with no loss: <[LINK] -9)>

Power relations are the matrix of possible actors and

possible actions.

There are no outcomes, because power deployed unidirectionally

instantaneously alters the relationship. This is the working

definition. Its repercussions are important.

{<[LINK]> cf <[LINK] -8)> below as well--use these as a bridge to the

<[LINK]>}

Waxing as near aphorism as the first definition, but better

capturing the nature of power relations, would be last offered

definition: <[LINK] -10>

Power relations are ever-shifting threats and promises.