Session #2: Informational Power

Informational power manifests in the relationship between a provider, rather than a mere emissary, and a recipient. Informational power can result from a lack of shared understanding between the producer and the consumer of the information being disseminated or from the lack of a shared understanding between the international parties involved in its production. It is also characterized by an emphasis on the responsibility of providing information that leads to an effective decision-making. The perception herein is that to provide information is in essence empowering. Although this is a commonly held perception of empowerment within functionalist contexts where information is transmitted to mold the individual to “better function” within a given society, and “functional” is defined by the dominant culture, this perception is problematic. In the international context where rationalist conceptions such as context-bound considerations co-exist with realist conceptions informed by functionalism it is problematic to assume that the culture-bound information being passed is empowering to all who receive it regardless of their cultural context.[i]
There is a tendency for international institutions, and to some extent regional institutions, to place local governments at the mercy of their information by defining what successful institutions should look like, how policies should be crafted and implemented for better societal functioning, what constitutes good governance, how educational reform should look like, and so forth. This renders international institutions, both at the global and regional level, to a position of indispensable expertise, which makes them guardians of indispensable information.
For me, as an expert in comparative and international education, this should be disconcerting and a matter to be addressed. In my observation, the field of comparative and international education is at a cross-road of defining itself in regards to its agenda. This position of being at a cross-road, amidst the pressure of competition to accumulate informational power, would require that comparativists ask themselves very hard questions such as, ‘should we sponsor a perspective of international and of development education founded on the information era project [my own term] of creating information banks to inform the so-called developing world on educational policy formation and implementation, teacher training, curricula, good governance of educational and political institutions, literacy campaigns, peace education, etc.?’ or ‘should we embark on a learning experience and a campaign for equality of acceptance and equity of engagement of multi-contextual knowledges from the various ethno-geographic contexts about each of these issues?’ This is a matter to be tackled by those whose burden is to continue the legacy on which the field seems to have been founded, as many delight in citing Sadler’s analogy, of mutual learning amidst the pressure of competition for monopoly of expertise and intellectual colonialism [my term].
In summary, although not always recognized by those involved in negotiations over (educational) policy, informational power plays an important role in the fairness of negotiations. The more active role a party has in establishing an agreement, the more likely it is to actively participate as expert in bringing the terms of the agreement to fruition. The goal should be to have no provider and recipient, but co-sharers of information that has the same weight in value and utility.

[i] According to Moseley (2006) political rationalism emphasizes the employment of reason in social affairs: that is, individuals ought to submit to the logic and universality of reason rather than their own subjective or cultural preconceptions. Rationalists argue that reason unifies humanity politically, and hence it is a conducive vehicle to peace. Political realism is a theory of political philosophy that attempts to explain, model, and prescribe political relations. It takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action, whether in the domestic or international arena. In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or should, strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage; nation states are seen as the primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power. The theory is therefore to be examined as either a prescription of what ought to be the case, that is, nations and politicians ought to pursue power or their own interests, or as a description of the ruling state of affairs-that nations and politicians only pursue (and perhaps only can pursue) power or self-interest.

Session #1: Hermeneutical Power

Hermeneutical Power
Hermeneutical power is the attribution of power imbalances to a lack of understanding of both the nature of the implications and the essence of the agreements or documents embodying such agreements. Based on understanding and interpretation of text, hermeneutical power places the groups proposing the agreements at an advantageous position. Arguably, it is insightful to note that those who propose the agreements and conceive the documents establishing such agreements know better the language of the documents as well as the essence and the implications of the agreements. They know what they seek through these agreements and “know” the spirit of the document. That is, they perceive the intrinsic and extrinsic meaning and implications of the given agreement or document.
The “knowledge” of the spirit of the agreement penetrates deeper than the text per se to the sources evoked in the text, i.e., classical authors with theoretical, epistemological, ontological, and axiological kinship to those who propose the agreements. The theoretical, epistemological, ontological, and axiological proximity of a particular party and distance of the other, to the classical sources of knowledge inspiring the agreements is essential to the concern with power dynamics since the hardest hermeneutical (interpretational) task is to establish authorial intent. Thus, degrees of closeness (that is, proximity and distance) to the author’s thought process constitute the measure of mastery of textual content and, in turn, mastery of textual content signifies an ability to manipulate content by unearthing the subtleties concealing essential meanings.
Inherent in the nuances of hermeneutical power is also the fact that closeness and distance leads to mediation between the core, i.e., the institutions or parties who originate the agreements, and the periphery entities, i.e., African institutions to whom the agreements are presented. Since mediators are not from neutral entities, rather personnel from core entities (e.g., consultants, retired or former officials, former government officials in countries where the institution is based, etc.), mediation results in the preservation of hermeneutical power in that it does nothing to change the text or the content of negotiations, but ultimately enhances the center’s understanding of the periphery. Thus, mediation becomes a tool to preserve hermeneutical power.
This preservation of power through mediation resonates with the inverted allegory of the cave thesis in Wa Thiong’o (1998) regarding the role of the interpreter. Wa Thiong’o borrowed from Socrates’ allegory of the cave where Socrates portrayed the philosopher as one whose knowledge of both the cave and the outer world illuminated the residents of the cave by interpreting the essence of the shadows that they saw in the cave as mere reflections of what was actually happening in the world outside.[i] Wa Thiong’o argued that the interpreter ought to be sensitive to the reality of those in the cave when attempting to interpret the reality found outside the cave. I argue, however, that this instance of my use of ‘mediator as interpreter’ is the reverse of the allegory of the cave thesis because while in Wa Thiong’o the interpreter aims at converting the cavers’ perspective into that of the outer world, the aim of international mediators is not to convert non-African institutions, but to help these institutions understand how to adapt their strategies for effectiveness in dealing with Africa.
In summary, hermeneutical power plays an important role in the fairness of negotiations. To reiterate, the closer a party is to the spirit of the text establishing the terms of an agreement, the more likely they are to catch the nuances and implications of such agreement.

[i]For additional readings on the Allegory of the Cave see Allan (1940); Aristotle (1938); Loeb Classical Library (1982); Loeb Classical Library (1987); and, Oxford Classical Texts (1992).

Introduction to Power Dynamics Series

Qualities of Power

Definition


Hermeneutical


Interpreter’s proximity to the authorial intent of a given text


Information

The ability to generate and disseminate what is considered true and valuable information at a given time


Manipulative

The ability to persuade another to adopt a perception and behavior that benefits the persuader


Monetary

The influence one exerts on another through the ability to provide monetary rewards or incentives


Regulatory

The ability to make rules or give directives that are perceived as binding

Power, Politics, and Higher Education in Southern Africa

Synopsis: This book addresses the manifestations of power dynamics in negotiations between international organizations operating at the global level (e.g., the World Bank, WTO, and UNESCO) and international organizations operating at the regional level (e.g., NEPAD, SADC, and AAU). It further addresses how these dynamics influence the educational autonomy of governments in the region. Although it focuses on Southern Africa, the principles drawn and the models developed therein can contribute to a better understanding of inter-organizational interactions in other regions of the world.
This study also illuminates specific and general instances of power dynamics, which resulted in models and categories of power that are useful to inform a wide variety of academic disciplines in the social sciences and the humanities. The RIF model (Regimes as Intermediate Factors) adds to the regime formation discourse by providing a visual representation of the complex role of regimes as intermediate between a system’s power structure and the negotiations and decision-makings that occur within the system. The NSPD model (Necessary and Sufficient conditions plus Properties and Dimensions) provides a tool with which to engage in basic conceptual analysis. The FET model (Filter Effect Theory) adds to the periphery-center discourse by providing a visual representation of the interactions between Global International Regimes, Regional International Regimes, and Local Governments in relation to the code of international negotiations. The SRHP model (Schematic Representation of Hermeneutical Power) adds a discourse of hermeneutical proximity-distance in areas concerned with textual interpretation.
Collections in African studies, education, and political science will find this book to be a valuable addition.