The Vocabulary Of Power
The mechanics of power are complex and easily misunderstood. Modern English vocabulary on the subject does not help; it is often imprecise and equivocal (e.g. the word influence), lumps together different types of power (e.g. authority), and frequently conflates power and morality (e.g. rights). The result is that it’s difficult to think clearly about how things work without resorting to nonstandard terms.
The ancient Romans used much clearer concepts to talk about power. This is not surprising, considering the Roman obsession with the subject. What follows are the four most useful concepts I’ve acquired from studying Roman ideas about power.
Imperium refers to control over violence. It was held by the imperator, the commander-in-chief of an army. He held the power of life and death over his soldiers, and through them, over everyone in the territory the army controlled.
No other type of power can block the use of imperium to destroy, but on its own imperium cannot be used to build. It is the most fundamental type of power, but also the crudest. Imperium is the type of power to use for conquest, expropriation, and extortion, for enforcing legal decisions, or for defending against others’ aggressive use of imperium.
Imperium survives in English in the word emperor, via imperator, which was among the titles of what English-speakers call the Roman Emperors. In modern usage, the term closest to the original meaning of imperium is the monopoly on legitimate violence. However, the Latin term avoids the connotations of moral or social approval which sneak into the English term.
Potestas refers to formal control in a nonmilitary organization. It is the type of power your boss has over you. It can be held by a CEO over a company, a principal over a school, or (in Roman times) a patriarch over a household.
This is the most common and visible form of power, and also the easiest to understand and use. Nearly every worthwhile project requires potestas to achieve the close internal coordination that is the foundation of any effective organization. A holder of potestas is always embedded inside the domain of a holder of imperium and relies on it for defense against some threats. Potestas is the type of power to use for “normal” hierarchical projects like restaurants, software companies, nonprofits, or the IRS, where it’s important that specific tasks get done reliably and on time.
The words potestas and power both come from the same root, potis. Power remains the closest English equivalent to potestas, as a relatively generic term that matches people’s everyday experience of formal control, although it is less precise than the Latin.
Dignitas refers to a rough amalgamation of wealth, formally-recognized accomplishment, family or class, connections, and charisma. It is held by politicians, magnates, and other leading figures.
It is more nebulous than imperium or potestas, and exists somewhat more “in the eye of the beholder”, although beholders have a remarkable tendency to reach the same conclusion. When used as a means, dignitas serves mostly to amplify other powers or skills. If used on its own, it must usually be piloted skillfully in order to accomplish anything more noteworthy than the acquisition of groupies. Yet, for many people of moderate ambition, dignitas takes on the character of a goal in itself. Dignitas is the type of power to use to get introductions and gain access, or to gain renown for its own sake.
Dignitas is, of course, the root of dignity. However, the closest word in modern usage is status. The difference is that status is about a person’s relation to their immediate surroundings (and so is highly context-dependent), whereas dignitas is about a person’s relation to their entire society (and so is context-invariant).
Auctoritas refers to the public recognition that a person has the appropriate standing to decide (or at least opine on) particular topics. In the context of ancient Roman politics, this described the power of the Senate, a judge, or an influential statesman. In the modern world, a parish priest holds substantial auctoritas over his congregation, while journalists wield some auctoritas over society as a whole. Constitutional monarchs still hold a great deal of auctoritas even if they rarely use it.
Of the forms of power described here, this is the most subtle. It is more than persuasion yet less than command. Like dignitas, auctoritas has a nebulous quality, although auctoritas is somewhat easier to codify and attach to formal roles. Like potestas, auctoritas applies only within a particular domain. Auctoritas is the type of power to use to guide a movement, change a culture, or spread an idea.
Auctoritas is the root of authority, although the modern English term refers to an unclear and inconsistent combination of potestas and auctoritas. The closest modern equivalent to auctoritas is legitimacy. The difference is that auctoritas is not necessarily so formal and codified, nor as moralistic.
These words are a closer match to the underlying mechanics of power than anything in modern English. I’ve found that much of the world, and much of my own life, is easier to think about in terms of these powers and their relations.
This essay was originally posted on July 6, 2018.
Follow Ben Landau-Taylor on Twitter: @benlandautaylor
Auctoritas sounds like it could be rounded down to "influence" or "deference" or "cultural capital"?
Am I right in understanding it as a kind of power that is voluntarily offered by a set of individuals or a group? That is, a person has auctoritas only insofar as others recognize him or her as being worth listening to and heeding?
Scott Alexander has Auctoritas because he's impressed a lot of people as being a smart guy with thoughtful takes. He therefore has some cultural capital. To a nontrivial degree he can sway his readership (and the broader tech world's) opinion on an issue by writing about it. He's an "authority" in the sense that people will listen to his ideas and take his views and arguments seriously. But be has no particular potestas, and if there's nothing stopping any particular person, or the whole of his readership from disregarding his view on any particular topic.
Same for Eliezer Yudkowsky, or Curtis Yarvin. Each of these people have demonstrated intellectual acumen, at least as evaluated by some intellectual community), and so there's a category of people that will at least take notice when they express a view on some issue.
And I suppose outside of our internet-intellectualism subculture, various credentials confer Auctoritas? Someone who has an MD is generally regarded as worth listening to, because the MD is evidence of expertise in medicine. Dr. Fauci is regarded as worth listening to about covid because he's a doctor AND the head of the CDC, which (to the extent that one assumes that institutions like the CDC are functional) means that he probably knows what he's talking about.
(Fauci also has some Potestas as head of the CDC. He can tell people what to do, or they'll be fired.)
Do I basically get it?
"My half-brother's code-key ring is not yours to trade," said Fell coldly.
"Oh, yes it is," said Mark. "I won it. I control it. I can destroy it. And"—he licked his lips; the girl raised the teacup again—"I paid for it. You would not now be offered this exclusive—and it is still exclusive—opportunity if not for me."
from Bujold, Lois McMaster. Mirror Dance (Vorkosigan Saga) (Miles Vorsokigan Book 8) . Kindle Edition.
The "I can destroy it" more or less sums up imperium I think. But he is enumerating the four words there. He has legitimacy to speak for it through "winning it" and also "paying for it". He has control, which I interpret as a combination of potestas and dignitas.
As for auctoritas? Fell is basically a space pirate, so there's an inherent problem there. But he does acknowledge Mark's power after this speech by offering for the ring, so he does have some recognition of the concept.