On abilities and power again: a reply to Peter Morriss
Pamela Pansardi
Abstract
Pamela Pansardi
Abstract
Replying to my article ‘Power to and power over: two distinct concepts of power?’, Peter Morriss offers some arguments against my attempt to reconcile the concept of power to and that of power over. In particular, he questions my interpretation of ‘power’ as necessarily implying social relations. In this reply, I provide further reasons for holding that a relational (as opposed to an ability-based) interpretation of power is the most appropriate to capture the usage of the concept in social and political theorizing.
OpenAlex reports 11 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Replying to my article ‘Power to and power over: two distinct concepts of power?’, Peter Morriss offers some arguments against my attempt to reconcile the concept of power to and that of power over. In particular, he questions my interpretation of ‘power’ as necessarily implying social relations. In this reply, I provide further reasons for holding that a relational (as opposed to an ability-based) interpretation of power is the most appropriate to capture the usage of the concept in social and political theorizing.
Key concepts: Interpretation (philosophy), Power (physics), Epistemology, Sociology, Politics, Social power, Positive economics, Political science