Power alone can be standardized and decoupled from reputation, validation, and tradition.

Evidence

However, influence on actions becomes less dependent on these initial conditions of generalization of motive because of the differentiation of a particular communication medium, i.e. power. Power can become independent of particular motivational preconditions to a greater extent than influence in general is able to. It relies on the combination of preferences outlined above (see Chapter 2, point 2), particularly if it can fall back on superior physical power. Such a combination can be standardized. It can be made independent of earlier validation and tradition and thus also of its connection with themes, persons, role-types or contexts with which such kinds of validation were connected. It can also be made immune to an appraisal of other people’s willingness to follow, as long as this does not itself become a power factor. So it is more compatible with a change in communication topics and with a turnover in power-holders, in other words, with greater mobility within the system. These are all preconditions for social recognition of the contingency of influence – in other words, for the fact that obedient people accept a reduction by others of their potential for action, although this has come about merely through decision. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 742

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the precise Luhmannian distinction between influence (anchored to reputation and themes) and power (abstracted, standardizable, independent of motivational preconditions) — the operational core the reader needs.
• XREF: Directly connects to Giddens’s ‘faceless commitments’ — Luhmann’s claim that power is independent of face-to-face validation is the mechanism by which Stevens can defer to an institution rather than engage in facework.