9: Systems of Power

A social structure is a set of long-lasting social relationships, practices, and institutions that can be difficult to see at work in our daily lives. They are intangible social relations, but work much in the same way as structures we can see: Buildings and skeletal systems are two examples. The human body is structured by bones; that is to say that the rest of our bodies’ organs and vessels are where they are because bones provide the structure upon which these other things can reside. Structures limit possibility, but they are not fundamentally unchangeable. For instance, our bones may deteriorate over time, suffer acute injuries, or be affected by disease, but they never spontaneously change location or disappear into thin air. Such is the way with social structures. The elements of a social structure, the parts of social life that direct possible actions, are social institutions such as family, media, medicine, work, education, religion, and the state. To say that these institutions direct, or structure, possible social action means that within the confines of these spaces there are rules, norms, and procedures that limit what actions are possible. For instance, there is much variation in the formation of families in the U.S.; however, one specific family form – the nuclear heterosexual family – has been privileged and exalted as the ideal for all and promoted or coerced within other institutions such as media and the state.

The elements of a social structure, the parts of social life that direct possible actions, are the institutions of society. These will be addressed in more detail later, but for now social institutions may be understood to include: the government, work, education, family, law, media, and medicine, among others. To say these institutions direct, or structure, possible social action, means that within the confines of these spaces there are rules, norms, and procedures that limit what actions are possible. For instance, family is a concept near and dear to most, but historically and culturally family forms have been highly specified, that is structured. According to Dorothy Smith (1993), the standard North American family (or, SNAF) includes two heterosexually-married parents and one or more biologically-related children. It also includes a division of labor in which the husband/father earns a larger income and the wife/mother takes responsibility for most of the care-taking and childrearing. Although families vary in all sorts of ways, this is the norm to which they are most often compared. Thus, while we may consider our pets, friends, and lovers as family, the state, the legal system, and the media do not affirm these possibilities in the way they affirm the SNAF. In turn, when most people think of who is in their family, the normative notion of parents and children structures who they consider.

Overlaying social structures and institutions are power relations. By power we mean two things: 1) access to and through the various social institutions mentioned above and 2) processes of privileging, normalizing, and valuing certain identities over others. This definition of power highlights the structural and institutional nature of power, while also highlighting the ways in which culture works in the creation and privileging of certain categories of people. Power in U.S. society is organized along the axes of gender, race, class, sexuality, ability, age, nation, and religion, which all have social hierarchies of identity. Some identities are normalized and more highly valued than others, and are contrasted to identities thought to be less valuable or less “normal.” Thus, identities are not only descriptors of individuals, but grant a certain amount of collective access to the institutions of social life. In other words, our gender, race, class, sexual, and other identities position us with a social location, our location in the social structure.

At the higher level of social structure, we can see that some people have greater access to resources and institutionalized power across the board than do others. Each area of social location involves a dominant group that has power and privilege and marginalized groups that lack power and privilege. Privilege refers to unearned, automatic power and benefits that people receive simply for being in the dominant group. Conversely, people in marginalized groups may experience oppression, systemic institutionalized obstacles that individuals in the marginalized group face, commonly referred to as the “–isms.” Sexism is the term we use to describe the discrimination and blocked access that women face. Building on this term, heterosexism and cissexism describe discrimination and blocked access that queer/LGBQ and transgender people face, respectively. Other –isms include racism for people of color, classism for working-class and low-income people, and ableism for disabled people or people with disabilities.

“Privilege is when you think something is not a problem because it is not a problem to you personally – SURJ MN” by Tony Webster is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

Together, privilege and oppression comprise systems of power, social systems of domination and subordination (Hill Collins 2000). For each area of social location, there is a system of privilege and a system of oppression such as white privilege and racism, male privilege and sexism, or straight privilege and heterosexism. As Black feminist sociologist Patricia Hill Collins (2009) explains, one cannot exist without the other – power/privilege for the dominant group does not exist without the oppression of those in marginalized groups. These systems of power reflect dominant cultural notions that women, trans people, queer people, people of color, poor people, and disabled people are inferior to men, cis people, straight people, white people, middle- and upper-class people, and able-bodied or neurotypical people. Yet, these systems are greater than individuals’ prejudice against those in marginalized groups. For instance, in the founding of the United States the institutions of social life, including work, law, education, and the like, were built to benefit wealthy white men since at the time these were, by law, the only real “citizens” of the country. Although these institutions have significantly changed over time in response to social movements and more progressive cultural shifts, their sexist, racist, classist structures continue to persist in different forms today.

This is not to say, for instance, that all white people are alike and wield the same amount of power over all people of color. It does mean that white middle-class women as a group tend to hold more social power than middle-class women of color. This is where the concept of intersectionality is key. All individuals have multiple aspects of identity, and most individuals simultaneously experience some privileges due to their socially-valued identity statuses and disadvantages due to their devalued identity statuses. Thus, a white middle-class heterosexual woman may be disadvantaged compared to a white middle-class heterosexual man, but she may experience advantages in different contexts in relation to a Black middle-class heterosexual woman, a white working-class heterosexual man, or a white upper-class lesbian woman. However, as we will see, intersectionality as about more than how individuals with different identities have different lived experiences.

Just like the human body’s skeletal structure, social structures are not immutable, or completely resistant to change. Social movements have fought for increased equality and against systems of oppression, and have changed the structures of society over time, in the US and abroad. However, these struggles do not change society overnight; some struggles last decades, centuries, or remain ever-unfinished. The structures and institutions of social life change slowly, but they can and do change based on the concerted efforts of individuals, social movements, and social institutions.