Naming Power
Four Formations of Power
Introduction
In our previous article, “Choosing Power,” we shared a praxis (Notice, Discern, Articulate, Decide) that helps us interrupt the automatic ways we relate to power.
To aid us in naming power, we have identified 4 Formations of Power that illustrate how power can be structured, designed, and used. The default formation, the one that dominates all others, is Power-Over. When we are not intentional about how we want power to be formed, we will always go back to Power-Over.
Below we share our Working Definitions for Power-Over as well as three Formations that, when chosen intentionally, can help us move away from Power-Over as default. We have also included Key Features for each formation, given Examples in how they are used, and provided Guiding Questions to Spot them.
We believe that naming power and choosing power are antidotes to the feelings of powerlessness we feel today. We hope that these Formations help you in becoming more aware and intentional of power in your everyday lives and relationships.
Power-Over: Power to Dominate & Annihilate
Working Definition:
Power-Over is using power to dominate, control, or annihilate. It decides for others, without their consent, and actively suppresses their ability to respond or resist.
Key Features:
No meaningful consent from those impacted
Secrecy, manipulation, or coercion are common tactics
Often justified by narratives of “deservingness” (who is “worthy” of life, safety, or resources)
Shows up at systemic and interpersonal levels
Examples:
A government deciding which communities are “sacrifice zones” for pollution, without any say from residents.
Policing and carceral systems that literally decide who lives, who dies, and whose lives are disposable.
An abuser isolating a partner from community, resources, and information.
Cultural gatekeepers who use mobbing, blacklisting, or sanctions to punish dissent.
Guiding Questions to Spot Power-Over:
Who decides who lives, who dies, or whose life is made unlivable?
Who cannot say no without serious harm?
What happens to people who disagree or resist?
What information is withheld, distorted, or weaponized?
Is it proposed by a billionaire?
Naming Power-Over clearly aids us in organizing against it and reducing its reach where and when we can.
Power-Above: Top-Down Decision Making
Working Definition:
Power-Above is a top-down structure where a person or small group makes decisions that affect others. Those impacted may be able to advise, inform, or appeal, but they do not ultimately decide.
Key Features:
Decisions flow downward
Information and feedback flow upward
There may be consultation, but not shared decision-making
Can provide clarity and speed, but easily slides into Power-Over if unchecked
Examples:
A director or ED making final decisions after staff and community give input.
A judge making a ruling after hearing arguments from both sides.
An emergency response where a designated lead decides quickly for safety reasons.
Guiding Questions to Spot Power-Above:
Who has the formal authority to decide?
Can those impacted offer input? Is that input ever able to change the outcome?
Is it clear when and why this top-down structure is being used?
Where does accountability reside within the relationships?
Are decision-makers held accountable to those impacted?
Power-Above is often the “default” structure in institutions: it can be harmful, but it can also be functional or even necessary in certain contexts—if it is transparent, limited, and accountable. If unexamined, it drifts toward Power-Over.
Power-For: Representational & Advocacy Power
Working Definition:
Power-For is using power to advocate or act on behalf of others, ideally with their knowledge, consent, and direction. It’s representational: someone or some group says, “We will speak, negotiate, or decide for you, grounded in what you’ve asked us to do.”
Key Features:
Based on a relationship and a level of consent
Meant to be in service of others’ needs, not to replace them indefinitely
Works best when it builds others’ capacity to act for themselves over time
Easily drifts into paternalism (“we know what’s best for you”) if not checked
Examples:
A tenant organizer speaking at City Hall on behalf of tenants who helped shape the testimony but can’t all be present.
A union steward negotiating a contract based on members’ votes and priorities.
A cultural worker using their institutional access to secure resources specifically for communities who asked for that support.
Guiding Questions to Spot (or strengthen) Power-For:
Who asked you to speak or act for them? How was consent facilitated?
How are you reporting back and staying accountable?
What pathways are you creating for people to advocate for themselves over time?
Where might “advocacy” be slipping into saviorism, paternalism, or control?
Power-For is often necessary—especially when systems are designed to exclude certain people, and it asks us to keep consent, accountability, and capacity-building at the center.
Power-With: Collective & Relational Power
Working Definition:
Power-With is the power we build together in relationship. It’s grounded in shared purpose, mutual consent, and co-created structure. No one is above or over; instead, people hold Power-With each other. Imagine a lava lamp where the liquid continually shifts but the contain still holds.
Key Features:
Everyone consents to be part of building power together
Decision-making is shared, transparent, and adaptable
Allows for autonomous action within shared purpose and agreements
Requires time, trust, and continuous communication
Examples:
A collective where members co-create processes, share facilitation, and rotate roles.
A coalition that defines shared principles and lets each group act autonomously while coordinating strategy.
Community assemblies where decisions are made through participatory processes (e.g. facilitated dialogue, consensus / modified consensus, the “law of two feet”, open space agenda setting, etc.).
Guiding Questions to Cultivate Power-With:
Who decides:
who decides?
what needs to be decided on?
how decisions will be made?
Do all gathered understand:
what is being discussed?
that they are decision makers?
how decisions, if any, will be made, and what is specifically being decided on?
How are you checking your biases?
What agreements help us move through conflict without defaulting to Power-Over?
How will we share information, skills, and resources so more people can act?
Power-With is not automatically “gentle” or “easy.” It can be messy, slow, and uncomfortable. But it is one of the few forms of power that strengthens everyone involved and expands what’s possible beyond any individual.
Some Final Questions & Reflections
We would love to hear from YOU! Below are a few questions we are curious about. Answer them in the COMMENTS or share your reflections, inspirations, and stories.
How are you naming and choosing power in your organizations, groups, and everyday lives?
What do you think about these definitions? Anything we missed? Anything that made you go, “Ah ha”?
Do you have examples or stories of any of these Formations?
These Four Formations of Power help us in our daily lives, in our groups, and in the relationship between us. We tend towards choosing Power-With because it is the closest Formation to what we know to be the path towards liberation. We also know Power-Above and Power-For have their uses and functions, especially during times of crisis, emergency response, and advocacy.
We hope that by sharing language about these Four Formations, you have ways of naming and choosing Power in your everyday lives, groups, and organizations.