John Scott's Book Power

AN EXAMPLE OF POWER EXERTED IN LION FORM
In the book power, the writer John Scott dived into the topic of basic elementary elements in power relations and the more advanced and enduring power structures. This essay is devoted to fitting one of the different advanced forms of power influences in a personal case. After examining the features of these forms of power and the correspondent details in the case, the lion type of influence fits the example.

To begin the topic, the background needs to be known. According to Scott (2001), there are two different emphases on power study (p.12). One is called ‘the corrective influence’, which comes to effect when resources are used as ‘punitive and remunerative’ tools aiming at altering subalterns’

Firstly, according to Scott, expertise rests on a ‘substantive trust in the competence of issuing the order’ (Scott, 2001, p. 23). In Etzioni’s view, as Scott referred (p. 24), the involvement of subaltern ‘is both intense and positive’ instead of ‘alienative’ (Scott, 2001, p. 24). When it comes to the case at hand, I distrusted the source and evidence from the party and doubted their authorities, hence they weren’t seen as competent guiders. Moreover, I was passively questioned and threatened, so hardly any positive involvement was there. As discussed above, the expertise could not be the power they used. Secondly, command also did not fit the situation. In command power relations, the influence is seen legitimate, correct and justified (Scott, 2001, p. 21). Furthermore, a value consensus must be present (Scott, 2001, p. 21). In the experience, the command that required me to admit I was guilty and evil since birth surely could not be considered justified, not mentioning in my eyes their source of power was not legitimate as well. Some people would contend that both sides in that room still had a kind of consensus, which is that a person should not offense the party. However, when facing an authority with his unforeseeable possible punitive resorts, the only way to avoid them is not to explicitly arguing against him. A seemly agreeable attitude did not represent a shared consensus in this case. Without just reasons and the existence of a consensus, finally, it will lead to the use of coercion or inducement (Scott, 2001, p. 21), as Durkheim argued. Lastly, the form of inducement is to be proved unsuitable. The essence of inducement is the regular offering of rewards (Scott, 2001, p. 20). In the experience, there was no reward offered so my shift of behavior was not due to the nonsexist reward. Finally, the lion perfectly suits the experience. There