Power chains generate counter-flowing informal power concentrated just below the top

Evidence

Accordingly, the defining characteristic of chain formation is the reflexivity of the power process, i.e. the possibility of using it on itself. … Thus one only finds reflexive mechanisms in systems which possess sufficiently clear limits and which can make their processes functionally specific. For example if political power becomes reflexive, this demands a corresponding degree of differentiation in the hierarchical structures with a sufficient amount of role separation. … As a precondition of increase, of extensiveness, range, and of capacity for intervention, therefore, chain formation demands and also creates barriers against the functional and systemic use of power. … One probable structural characteristic of power stretched out in chain form is to create counter-flowing power, since the power of the system exceeds the potential selection capacity of a single power-holder and the ability of middle links in the chain to intervene serves them as a personal source of power. In this way power-codes are divided into ā€˜formal’ and ā€˜informal’, and the greatest agglomeration of formal/informal powers will be found at key points below the very top. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 656

Categorization

  • XREF: Directly relevant to Stevens’s position as a middle link in Darlington’s power chain — his personal source of power below the top, and the formal/informal split. — connects to: Power chains exist only when a superior can command a subordinate’s power over others; In organizations power generates its own countervailing power.; Writing enabled complex power chains and democratic control over power (+1 more)
  • DEFINE: Defines ā€˜chain formation’ as reflexive power process, a core Luhmann concept for the reader’s thesis.
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 656

Broader Connections