User:GCooper316/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 10/Power

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Power in Fashion

[edit | edit source]

The Power of Fashion on society

[edit | edit source]

Fashion, specifically sartorial fashion, refers to the way of dressing according to the preferred style by a culture at a given time.[1] This preferred style is actually influenced by the fashion industry. Fashion creates a system of so-called common values (common sense of fashion) that people follow automatically if they don’t want to feel excluded and hence, become the targets of this system. It guides people to do certain choices instead of others. Therefore, by interfering in people's decisions and conveying bias concerning people style, power in fashion can be seen as an indirect coercion. Fashion has become a factor of integration and an indicator, not only to show our fashion taste but as an indicator of our social status.[2] It can be used to judge and classify people. Thus, fashion has reinforced social inequalities. Social inequalities can be explained as injustices undergone by a certain group of people due to their social status. They can be expressed in two ways: inequalities of conditions (limited access to certain resources) and inequalities of opportunity (limited access to new occasions).[3] In fashion, power and social inequalities are presented in many forms, taking into account many disciplines, this is why it is a difficult issue to solve.

Power in Fashion as an interdisciplinary issue

[edit | edit source]
Economics
[edit | edit source]

Fashion has become a full-fledged business. Even though many countries around the world are involved in the process of making new products, their role and what they earn is not the same. The products are designed in developed countries to be manufactured in emerging countries and finally to be sold in main zone of consumption in Europe, America and Asia mainly. This strategy was implemented because it allows to make more profit.[4] Even though emerging countries generate a lot of money, it is nothing compared to the profits of the home-countries of the brands they work for. There is therefore an obvious wealth inequality. But this economic difference due to the split of activities is also understandable if we look closer to the weight of influence of certain countries especially the renowned fashion capitals: Paris, Milan, London and New York.[5] Their great notoriety gives them a power: the buyers sees them as a reference. This does not only allow them to generate more income, but also makes it almost impossible for new countries to enter the fashion business. Thus, social inequalities in the economic field can be explained as the unequal distribution of wealth and the restricted access to the fashion industry for emerging countries.

Psychology
[edit | edit source]

Studies in psychology show that first impressions are very important. According to psychologists, a person can have an idea of who and how the person in front of them may be just by looking at them for few seconds.[6] Even though facial expressions are important, clothes are also a criterion for judging a person. Some psychologists have done research to measure their impact. Consequently, they were able to show that clothes could give cues about our personality but also of our social status.[7] Indeed, clothes are a good indicator of wealth. To be fashionable, you need to have the means because fashion is always evolving and requires a significant investment for a person to follow it. Clothes can also give an indication about someone's habits - a person who follows trends in fashion may look more youthful and creative. However, first impressions play a very important role in everyday life, as they determine our relationships with others. The importance of clothing then implies that it may difficult sometimes for someone to fit in because they could be rejected on account of the way they dress. This can take place when requesting for a new job (e.g., during interviews).[8] Moreover, people from certain cultural and religious communities may face the same discrimination due to the way they dress. Hence, some groups of people would face inequalities of opportunity while others would be advantaged.

Sociology
[edit | edit source]

In sociology, clothing is seen as a social marker that empowers the upper class. Indeed, according to the sociologist Simmel, they are at the origin of the changes in fashion, which they use in order to be able to continually differentiate themselves from the middle classes who seek to resemble them by adopting their style.[9] However, other sociologists such as Carter argue against this claim writing that the two classes are trying to define his own style while they keep up with the trends.[10] No matter how it can be interpreted, fashion still gives a higher status to the wealthier person because they can afford high quality and trendy objects that allows them to be admired by others. Additionally, as psychologists noted, our clothes have an impact on how others see us. Therefore, they have an impact in our relation and the way we interact with other people by creating a system of bias (power as indirect coercion). Accordingly, people get together with people who have a similar style of dressing.[2]This will lead to fragmentation of society into categories depending on how they dress. People wanting to integrate or be accepted are then constrained to obey the fashion rules. For those who don’t or can’t, they will be sidelined.

History
[edit | edit source]

A history approach shows us where fashion came from and where it originated. The desire of the upper classes to differentiate themselves has been present for many centuries. This is a habit that dates back to the Ancient Regime in Europe.[11] Clothes was one indicator to show his rank and wealth. For this reason, the rich consume many products from remote countries, each of them different in color and fabric to show their status.[12] This kind of fashion was only available to the richest. However, from the 18th century, fashion became less restrictive. This phenomenon was accentuated over time with the industrial revolution: it restructured the social class by reducing the wealth inequality between the rich and the poor, giving the new "middle class" the opportunity the access to more expensive goods.[13] Now, fashion is not as powerful as a demarcation tool. Clothes have become a means of expression where everyone can give their personal touch. However, fashion remained in the hands of the important members of the industry, notably the 4 big fashion cities which play an important role in launching new trends and influencing people's dressing style.[11] Again, power is not shared equitably by letting occidental countries lead since fashion appeared as a global phenomenon. Historically, their authority is founded.

Arts
[edit | edit source]

Even if fashion is not among the “7 arts”, it is a renowned art form. Art is at the basis of the design of new trends and product confections. Fashion has had a great cultural and artistic influence on society. Clothes are something we wear every day. They reflect our values and standards. Clothing fashion has the power to orient society towards a certain way of dressing, therefore, to pronounce a certain universal culture.[2]Those who run it can access power as a direct coercion. Fashion involves many artistic professions, but those who have the most significant role are fashion designers. Most of them are graduates from big fashion schools. These schools are mainly in Europe or the United States.[14] The tuitions fees for these prestigious universities shows that only wealthy people who had a prior education (because the entry is selective) can access to these establishments. The prize and the location of these schools make it advantageous for people in Europe and North America to enter the fashion industry. Fashion, which is represented in all countries, is then mainly influenced by Western standards. They useit as a powerful tool to spread their cultures in other regions and increase their soft power.[15]In addition, most of the big designer fashions are men, which is interesting considering that women are the main targets, known as big consumers. Thus, the arrival of the first female designer at Dior is recent: 2016. However, these facts are surprising because the majority of fashion schools graduate are women, at around 85%.[16] One of the explication behind this is the gender that affect women and make it difficult for them to access management positions.

Conclusion

[edit | edit source]

In conclusion, fashion exercises power as an indirect coercion and sometimes direct coercion on society. The result of this power reinforces the social inequalities between countries and classes due to wealth, gender and race. It is a interdisciplinary issue because it affects the presentation of certain groups in disciplines and is a phenomenon that can only be explained with the collaborative work between the disciplines.

A further exploration: How Power in Fashion has affected the environment

[edit | edit source]

Fashion undoubtedly has a power over people, in the sense that people feel pressured to keep up with latest trends in fashion to feel like they belong. Unsurprisingly, the industry exploits this indirectly coercive power they hold, through the phenomenon of fast fashion. Due to the eagerness of consumers to indulge in fashion, the industry takes this opportunity for higher profit by rapidly mass producing clothes within weeks after of its’ debut on the runway.[17][18] As mentioned earlier, the practices concerned with mass producing clothing is not necessarily expensive as it is outsourced from emerging countries - these items can be sold inexpensively, which attract even more consumers. The responsiveness of consumers and greed of suppliers create this short-lived fashion cycle, which repeats over and over again giving rise to fast fashion. Fast fashion practices have major environmental impacts - the fashion industry produces 92 million tonnes of waste per year, and consumes 79 trillion litres of water.[19] What’s worse is that the items produced are not used for very long, and usually winds up in a landfill rather than the 1% of used clothing that is recycled.[20] The environmental impacts caused by the misuse of power in the fashion industry could lead to more serious consequences and contribute to climate change, so it is vital that consumers and suppliers of the industry are conscious of their practices and intentions.

Power in Economic Interactions

[edit | edit source]

Definition of Power

[edit | edit source]

Power refers to the capacity to influence and acquire the things desired in objection to the will of others.[21] Specifically, power in economics takes two main forms. Firstly, power may set the conditions of exchange. Secondly, it may manipulate or put pressure to set heavy costs: unless the other party behaves in a way that gives the advantage to the person with power.[22] These two main forms are the pillars of institutional power.

Institutional Power

[edit | edit source]

Institutional power directs the way of economic interaction by setting the specific rules. It affects the equity of power in economic interactions as well as the efficiency and fairness of the allocation. Since interactions between each party can lead not only to mutual benefits but also conflicts over distribution, institutions provide both the constraints and the incentives to achieve higher collective well-being.[23] There are a number of examples of economic institutions who mainly regulate people’s behaviour by legislating rules and the constituents are bound to be in adherence. If anyone fringes the rule, then there might be a punishment.[24]Political dictatorships in the novel “1984” can be an example of institutional power, where a government controls every aspect of life, both public and private.[25]In the meantime, democratic society can also be a relevant example, taking the form of social consent instead of physical coercion. Thus, institutional power can be construed as direct power as the economic actor sets the rules.[26]

Bargaining Power

[edit | edit source]

The measurement of the capacity of one economic actor to affect another is called bargaining power, which eventually decides feasible allocation. [27] Feasible allocation can indicate the amount of working time compared to the income or the number of products compared to its price. For example, in the mid-nineteenth century, appraisal of bargaining power in human resources was a mix of changes in the supply and demand for workers, and new institutions such as trade unions, and the right to vote for workers gave employees the bargaining power to increase wages substantially and paved way for them to have reduced work hours. [28] Consequently, this power can be referred to as indirect power because the outcome is not intentional.

Economic Interactions within Power

[edit | edit source]

Neither power nor effort is required in order for people to get involved in economic interaction since it always provides them with extra benefits, which is called economic rents.[29] Economic rent is a benefit obtained more than what the economic actor would have gained in his or her next best alternative called reservation option. [30] However, the distribution of its rent in each party depends on “bargaining power”, and the institution decides the degree of bargaining power between parties. In other words, economic interaction depends on bargaining power, which is subjected by institutional power. For example, in the relationship between the landlord and slave where the owner is the only person who decides the working hours and the distribution of the total amount of crop, the owner has all bargaining power. In this case, the economic interaction occurs within the technically feasible set, which operates within the bounds of biological survival constraints and feasible frontier. However, with the legislation of subsistence rations and private property: a form of institutional power, workers also get bargaining power despite its relatively small amount. In this case, the economic interaction will occur in economically feasible allocations or the area limited by the reservation indifference curve and the feasible frontier.[31]

Conclusion

[edit | edit source]

Therefore, institutional power determines the degree of the bargaining power of each party, which in turn decides a feasible allocation and the share of economic rent.

Power in Eugenics

[edit | edit source]

An introduction to eugenics

[edit | edit source]

Eugenics is the scientific discipline concerned with breeding humans with desirable traits, in pursuit of producing a population with improved genetic composition.[32][33][34] Eugenics can also be split into positive and negative eugenics: positive eugenics seeks to promote fertility, while in negative eugenics, fertility is suppressed.[35][36] Undoubtedly, the discipline had more significance in the 20th century. The lack of attention surrounding eugenics today, however, is not a coincidence - the damage caused by the abuse of power and violation of human rights still echoes into the present day, so much so that the field is generally abandoned. Eugenics was globally influential, as there were eugenics movements in the United States, Britain, parts of Latin America and Asia, and so on.[37]

Power as an issue in eugenics

[edit | edit source]

In the early 20th century, eugenics was viewed as an opportunity to improve society, fixing the existing problems that prevailed.[37] It was a widely accepted science - at least by individuals who had traits deemed favourable by eugenics experts. Through many disciplines such as law, politics, family planning, sociology, etcetera, eugenic power came into effect in different forms.

Eugenic power as a direct coercion

[edit | edit source]

To be able to apply eugenic methods onto a population, eugenicists first had to identify the “feebleminded”, or “morons” - people who were considered to be the root of societal issues. In the United States, eugenicists utilised an intelligence test that allowed to them to do this “scientifically”.[38][39][40][41] Yet, the parameters for who would be considered “feeble-minded” and not worthy of further breeding were not well-defined. According to the eugenicist Henry Goddard, “feeblemindedness” was a hereditary trait, and that the the “feebleminded” had an IQ that was below the normal standard.[42][43] However, the IQ tests and assumptions directly imposed on people were flawed, reflecting the officials’ own classist and racist beliefs,[43] enabling the abuse of power in the guise of diagnosis. Eugenics was then brought into action mainly through the forced institutionalisation of “morons”, while women were sterilised against their will, and birth control was prescribed to those who were discouraged from breeding.[38][44]

Eugenic power as an indirect/institutionalised coercion

[edit | edit source]

To further integrate eugenics into society, laws and regulations were implemented. This branch of eugenics is known as public eugenics.[45] Though not as successful as the United States, sterilisation laws directed at people with mental and physical disabilities were enacted by Hitler, who was interested in eugenics, during his first year of reign. About 40,000 underwent involuntary sterilisation due to the law.[38][46] Returning to the movement in the United States, extensive laws were put into place besides sterilisation laws. The Immigration Restriction Act of 1924 limited the entry of people of target nationalities, whereby the basis of the act was eugenic - to prevent Europeans, who then were considered to reproduce at a higher rate than Americans, from mingling with the existing American population.[47] Marriage laws were also enacted: the prohibition of interracial marriages was re-instated in the US during the early 20th century.[48]

The policies implemented as part of the American eugenics movement played a large role in its international influence, persuading countries such as Canada, Japan, and Germany to enact similar laws.[49] Though the policies, at surface-level, seemed purely motivated by eugenics, the biases that instilled deep within failed to remain undiscovered. In Michael D’ Antonio’s book, The State Boys Rebellion, he criticised that “prejudice overwhelmed reason” when it came to the restrictions placed on the entry of Asians immigrants.[50] The ban on interracial marriages mentioned above had also had racially-motivated intentions - It served as an intersection between eugenics and white supremacy, as it would only allow Caucasians to marry and breed amongst themselves instead.[48] Sterilisation laws which disproportionately affected minorities[38][51] also had classist,[52] ableist, racist, and xenophobic[53] implications, due to the misguided, biased methods of selecting individuals that would be targeted by the laws discussed above.[54]

Conclusion: Interdisciplinary power as a strategy

[edit | edit source]

Demonstrations of eugenic power listed above are non-exhaustive and vary far beyond the mentioned examples of eugenics in the United States and Germany. Furthermore, the interdisciplinary, creative forms of power in eugenics are not mutually exclusive - they synergise with one another and overlap to rise to prominence. Powerful eugenic policies that had institutionalised biases paved the way for more forms of directly coercive powers, for example, laws that allowed the practice of involuntary sterilisation.[38][55] Taking into account all the efforts deployed, it would be reasonable to say that eugenic purpose has been distorted within these movements to reflect a different strategy instead. A strategy that perpetuated, within the upper class/privileged individuals, discriminative views towards those with physical or mental disabilities, those who were of a minority race, those who were of lower social status, and so on.

An important note to acknowledge is that eugenics is not extinct, or at least the ideas it once upheld, perhaps owing to the immense power of the historical movements. A germline editing tool and recent hot topic, the CRISPR/Cas9 has raised concerns for bioethicists. CRISPR/Cas9 has phenomenal accuracy in gene editing, which is a feature that harnesses eugenic potential - to edit and improve genes deemed undesirable, a concept that has failed to remain neutral and just in the past. Fortunately, there is sound awareness about the consequences of past eugenics movements, which does not go unheard in modern biotechnology.[56][57]

[edit | edit source]

Power in The US Electoral College

[edit | edit source]
How does the Electoral College work?
[edit | edit source]

The Electoral College is the unique voting procedure in the United States to indirectly elect the President. It consists of 538 electoral votes which corresponds to the representation of each state in the House of Representative.[58] The number of representatives each state is awarded is based on its population (435 electoral votes), in addition to the two senators. The District of Columbia also receives 3 electoral votes. In essence, on Election Day, each of the 51 states holds its own individual election to determine the allocation of the electoral votes. In order to win the election, a president candidate must earn a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes, which is not to be confused with the majority of all legal votes, the popular vote.

Power in the Electoral College
[edit | edit source]

The main argument of those in favor of replacing the Electoral College is that it gives disproportionate voting power in favor of smaller, historically "white" states. [59] The largest difference occurs between Wyoming and Texas. The former has a population of 563, 626 (as of 2010 census bureau estimate [60] and thus three electoral votes whereas the latter has a population of 25,145,561 (as of the same 2010 consensus [61] and 32 electoral votes. If one divides the the population by electoral votes, Wyoming has a representative for every 187.875 people while Texas has one for about every 785.801. This difference is shocking it already shows how a vote counted in Wyoming has a significantly larger impact on the outcome of the election. This form of power is referred to as indirect, or institutionalized coercion; the institutional process that operates "systematically and consistently to the benefit of certain persons and groups at the expense of others. Those who benefit are placed in a preferred position to defend and to promote their vested interests."[62] This definition raises the question, 'so which are the groups the the Electoral College benefit'? Staying with the most striking example of Wyoming and Texas, by analyzing their respective populations one can get a better idea of the power dynamics behind the system. 92.5% of Wyoming's population is white alone, merely 1.3% is African American alone, and 3.5% is foreign born persons. The statistics of Texas show different numbers: 78.7% is white alone, 12.9% is African American alone and 17% is foreign born persons. The data presented supports the claim, that the Electoral College *still* magnifies the power of white voters.

Data collected by the Pew Research Center [63] shows that a Hispanic vote is worth 91% of a white vote, while a black vote is worth 95%. The reason for this once again lies in the demographics, the fact that 47% of Hispanic voters live in either Texas or California. [64]

Conclusion and Possible Solution
[edit | edit source]

The institutionalized coercion exercised by the Electoral College through the disproportionate representation becomes particularly problematic when the candidate who did not win the majority (or popular vote) wins. This has happened 6 times in the history of the United States thus far, with the most controversial instance in 2016, when Democratic president-candidate Hillary Clinton ended up with nearly 3 million more votes than her opponent, Donald Trump. [65] A possible — and according to experts a more democratic [66] — solution would be to reform the Electoral College, so that the candidate scoring the most votes becomes elected. This idea would solve the issues over representation, could potentially give rise to more parties and would protect the interests of less populated areas.[67] Although the attempts to reform the Electoral College have all been unsuccessful thus far, according to a 2020 study, 61% of Americans would support having it abolished.[68]

Power in Immigration systems

[edit | edit source]

Introduction to immigration issues

[edit | edit source]

Immigration refers to when someone comes to live in a different country.[69] Countries each have their own immigration system, which varies from country to country but generally involves filtering applications to come live in the country,[70] and enforcing violations of immigration law such as illegal immigration. However, while simple on the surface, immigration systems around the world often reflect racial power issues existing in the country. Racial power refers to the ability of certain races or a singular race to fulfill their will within the context of a communal action while other races are unable to do the same, and this entry will break down the existence of different forms of racial power within the immigration system. The United States will be used as a primary example.

Racial power through indirect coercion within immigration systems

[edit | edit source]

Indirect, or institutionalised coercion refers to the mobilisation of bias that is operated upon in a systematic way, to the advantage of some and the expense of others.[71] Applying this definition to immigration systems, we can see that this is often widely present within a racial context, with ethic groups often being placed at a systemic disadvantage.

The US immigration serves as a good example of how racial power exists systemically for immigration. Racism is present both currently and historically. Laws for immigration have historically been based upon the exclusion of specific nationalities, with the Immigration Act of 1924 completely banning immigrants from Asia[72] and only allowing a small number of Southern European and Middle Eastern immigrants.[73] Meanwhile, systemic power was given to predominantly white countries such as Germany and Britain, as immigrants from those countries were able to enter the United States in large numbers.[73] Fast forwarding to today, we can see how this racism still exists, albeit in a more subtle fashion. During his presidency, Donald Trump has signed executive orders with the purpose of restricting immigrants that are from the Middle East, Africa, Central America and Latin America. [73] From America's example, we can see how white races are both currently and historically given systemic power over racial minorities in the US immigration system.

This racial power exists not only in the creation of immigration laws that discriminate against certain races or nationalities but also in the execution of immigration laws. Take the case of immigration officers who raided a poultry transport company, targeting workers solely on the basis of race, particularly Latinos. White employees, on the other hand, were simply asked to redirect officers to their Latino co-workers.[74] This reflects how racial biases and power for white people can heavily influence the execution of immigration laws. Races that are mostly free from such biases face a far smaller chance of being arrested on grounds of violating immigration laws. Additionally, a news report from the Centre of Migration Studies found that within Frederick County, Maryland, a significantly disproportionate number of arrests for immigration and customs enforcement were Hispanics.[75] Overall, from the above, one can see how racial power exists for immigration systems in the form of indirect coercion.

Racial power through strategy and language within immigration systems

[edit | edit source]

In contrast to systemic power, power can also exist as a strategy and in language, where it can influence or even create subjective judgments that fuel the ability of certain groups to influence the ability of other groups. For immigration issues, racial power exists in the form of social beliefs that immigrants of a certain race are more likely to commit crimes. Take the example of Trump, who has called Mexicans “Drug dealers, criminals, rapists” in rallies,[76] skewing the debate over immigration policies to exclude racial minorities. This in turn can translate into furthering both systemic racial profiling, as well as the racial power within immigration laws mentioned previously.

Immigration as an interdisciplinary issue involving law, history, and sociology

[edit | edit source]

Immigration issues hold wide implications for the disciplines of history, sociology, and law for which it is an intersection of the three. As seen from the above, historical racism influences current social attitudes and often contributes to biases within the current legal system, which holds implications for history in its role of shaping our current society from a legal and social perspective. In regards to sociology, one can also see how current social attitudes towards different races can lead to the violation of rights for immigrants on a systemic level, with the racial profiling by immigration officers serving as an example of this. Lastly, in regards to law, one can see how while it is often promoted as the firm baseline for citizens to act, it can be influenced heavily by external social biases and fuel the skewing of power away from minorities.

Power in Public Policy

[edit | edit source]

Introduction to Public Policy

[edit | edit source]

The study of public policy deals with the applications of social scientific disciplines and concepts in dealing with the issues that arise from governmental administration, management, and operations.[77] Through this discipline, we will see how indirect power interacts within it through the analysis of the passing of Indonesia’s Omnibus Bill.

Introduction to the Omnibus Law

[edit | edit source]

The Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja, also known as the Job Creation Bill, are a collection of laws which aim to attract foreign and domestic investment to Indonesia through eliminating the bureaucratic red tape that has plagued opportunities for investment and further economic progress. These laws ranged from reducing the severance pay from a 32 months salary to 19 months, eliminating of environmental impact assessments for business projects, increasing the overtime limit, and reducing the mandatory rest days.[78] The law has been criticized by multiple labor unions and environmental campaigners in Indonesia on the basis of how it has compromised workers’ rights and weakened environmental regulations for the benefit of large corporations.[79] The drafting of the job creation bill not only demonstrated yet again how the enforcement of public policies have been exploited to cater to the interests of the political elite and corporations at the expense of the working class but also serve as a case study of how institutionalized coercion utilized by the government could be exhibited in multiple ways.

Institutionalized Coercion in the Omnibus Law

[edit | edit source]

Institutionalized coercion, according to Bachrach and Baratz, deals with a set of “predominant values, beliefs, rituals and institutional procedures… that operate systematically and consistently to the benefit of certain individuals and groups at the expense of others".[80] Through this form of power, we could observe the ways in which the Indonesian government was able to effectively pass the omnibus bill under the backdrop of protests that spanned months. One could argue that the government used this form of power was through the utilization of propaganda to ensure a sufficient level of complacency when exercising power. One could argue that the rapid drafting of the law during the premise of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic was used as a means to discourage protests and a means to justify their “denying the public a significant role in the decision-making process” which was argued as an “act of disrespect towards democracy”.[81][82] Moreover, using the fears of infection as a deterrent to protesting, the Indonesian government could not only discourage people from protesting in opposition to the law but also paint those who protested in a negative light as they were ‘reckless and breaking social distancing rules’. This antagonized image of protesters was further bolstered by the burning of a bus station in Bundaran HI during the protests which caused the public to assume that the destruction of public property was done by the protesters to promote anarchy and chaos even after reports refuted claims that the fires were started by the participants of the protests.[83] Since the late 1960s, there has been a rampant stigma against communists and anarchists in the Indonesian public due to the events of the 30 September Movement and as a result, along with the sensationalized and negative portrayal of these protesters through the media, the government was able to take advantage of this institutionalized bias to further villainize those opposing the bill.

Moreover, this was starkly contrasted by the government’s own portrayal as a voice of reason. In response to the criticisms of RUU-Ciptaker, the Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs Mahfud MD argues that the law was made in response to “ the people’s complaints” which would also benefit the stagnated economy.[84] Moreover, even president Jokowi had “‘invited the public’ to provide insights for the numerous regulations needed under the jobs law” and dismissed criticisms towards the law as fake news which consequently cast the government in a positive and almost faultless light.[85] By introducing the reckless villain and the voice of reason through the manipulation of the media, the Indonesian government was able to effectively influence the beliefs and behavior of the general public in order to stifle additional protests and ensure complacency in passing the law.

Power In Language

[edit | edit source]

Introduction

[edit | edit source]

«Language is a natural human system of conventionalized symbols that have understood meanings.»[86] With the help of language people are able to express and communicate their own thoughts, opinions and feelings as well as enact different social roles. There are various social tasks which are done with the help of language. They include co-constructing social reality between and between individuals, conducting and organizing social events such as communicating, debating, arguing and telling people what they should or should not do.[87] Language also stands for ethnolinguistic, national, or religious identity public marker so powerful that people and whole nations are ready to fight in a war in order to defense it just as they would defense their national flag. Such functions and identities of language make it a fundamental part of human communication.[88]

Micro And Macro Levels Of Language Power

[edit | edit source]

One of the ways to differentiate power of language is through micro-level and macro-level of power itself. At the micro level, the speaker influences the hearer by revealing speaker’s possessions of social status, money, wealth or any other attractive personal attributes. It makes the peskier automatically more influential and persuasive. [89] At the macro level, language power us about collectiveness and power behind whole communities with common language. It also represents the collective / historical influence of the linguistic group that uses it. On the example of English as a global language, it has gained its superiority and shaped the communicative connection between native and nonnative speakers mostly because of the power of the English- speaking world rather than because of its linguistic superiority [90] These effect was later referred as “linguistic imperialism.” Ironically, the spread of English increased the amount of multilingual non-English speaking nations, resulting in having English implemented in school programs all around the world, yet English-native speakers remained learning one language only. This stresses the whole world by pressuring almost every country to accommodate English-speakers on their native language, making them more privileged and superior. [91]

Another way to differentiate language powers is by dividing them into the powers of language that are aimed at maintaining existing dominance, showing the immense impact on national unity and discord and creating influence through single words:

The power of language to maintain existing dominance

[edit | edit source]

This type of language power can be mostly seen in sexist, racist, ageist and national reasoning that make one group of language more dominant than the others. Based on the research on linguistic sexism it was seen that man-made languages such as English are full of sexist words and Grammar rules that represent historical male supremacy in society. Its neutral usage by both sexes on the daily basis has actually naturalized male dominance and further gender inequalities. [92]

Immense impact of language power on national unity and discord

[edit | edit source]

If language became a part of peoples’ common national identity and led to its vitality, the power of the language would contribute to unification of people. This type of power has often been used by national and political leaders for the unification of their countries. [93]. Under this power, in the postcolonial countries it happened to be two languages: their indigenous language of the land and colonial language which appeared after the colonization. This leads to nationalism take place, when the official status of the indigenous language is restored whilst the colonial language is retained or even relegates to nonofficial status. [94]

However, there can be the other side of the coin: language can also divide a nation. The devision can be caused by tensions of minorities of different language communities in claiming the official-language, which includes protests of maintenance of the minority language , language rights at school, bilingual education and language wars.[95]

Language power to create influence through single words

[edit | edit source]

This type of language power include metaphors, oratories, conversations and narratives in political campaigns and terrorist narratives. Well-known language empowers people to learn the dynamic structure of norms and connections between words and sounds, on the one hand, and the types of things and relationships to which they relate, on the other.[96] Huge researches have been conducted on the studies of metaphors and the power of single words in them, that is established by social-cognitive function mentioned above. This area of researches dives into the researches of inner workings of the brain and breaks any disciplinary boundaries.[97] However, the power of single words can be extended beyond metaphors. It can be seen in misleading words in the key questions, [98], Reversed expectations from real-world knowledge by concessive connectives[99], verbs that attribute an implicit causation to either the subject of the verb or the object [100] and abstract words that show power [101].

Conclusion

[edit | edit source]

Language has the power not only over individuals, but over whole nations and countries. It can lead to national unifications as well as wars for the native language, can be seen as promoting men dominance over women on the one hand, yet promoting equality on the other. Language is the most significant tool in our world, contributing to interdisciplinary approach as much as possible, by connecting different spheres of academia by the power of words.

References

[edit | edit source]
  1. ↑ Masterclass, Fashion vs Style: Key Differences Between Fashion and Style. DESIGN & STYLE. Weblog. [Online] Available from: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/key-differences-between-fashion-and-style#what-is-fashion [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  2. ↑ a b c D.Saravanan, Nithyaprakash.V., FASHION TRENDS AND ITS IMPACTON SOCIETY. Conference: International conference on textiles, Apparels and Fashion.Conference paper. 2015. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/24259055/Fashion_trends_and_their_impact_on_the_society [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  3. ↑ Ashley Crossman, A.C. The Sociology of Social Inequality. ThoughtCo. Weblog. [Online] Available from: https://www.thoughtco.com/sociology-of-social-inequality-3026287 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  4. ↑ John S Major, J.S.M., Valerie Steele,V.S. Fashion industry. Encyclopedia Britannica. Weblog. [Online] Available from: https://www.britannica.com/art/fashion-industry [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  5. ↑ Joint Economic Committee Democrats. The Economic Impact of the Fashion Industry. Reports. 2019. Available from: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2019/2/the-economic-impact-of-the-fashion-industry [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  6. ↑ Serenity Gibbons, S.G. You And Your Business Have 7 Seconds To Make A First Impression: Here's How To Succeed. Forbes. Weblog. [Online] Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/serenitygibbons/2018/06/19/you-have-7-seconds-to-make-a-first-impression-heres-how-to-succeed/?sh=1dad1f9056c2 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  7. ↑ Howlett, Neil & Pine, Karen & Orakcioglu, Ismail & Fletcher, Ben. The influence of clothing on first impressions: Rapid and positive responses to minor changes in male attire. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management. 17. 38-48.2013. Available from:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256846903_The_influence_of_clothing_on_first_impressions_Rapid_and_positive_responses_to_minor_changes_in_male_attire
  8. ↑ Talk business. How important is a first impression in business?. Strategy. Weblog. [Online] Available from: https://www.talk-business.co.uk/2014/12/03/important-first-impression-business/ [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  9. ↑ Georg Simmel, G.S. Fashion’s Woman Problem. American Journal of Sociology. [Online] 1957;62(6): 541-558. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2773129?seq=1 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  10. ↑ Michael Carter, M.C. Fashion Classics from Carlyle to Barthes. New York: Berg; 2003.
  11. ↑ a b Sew guide. History of fashion – A brief story of the evolution of fashion. Weblog. [Online] Available from: https://sewguide.com/evolution-of-history-of-fashion/ [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  12. ↑ Carlo Marco Belfanti, C.M.B, Fabio Giusberti, F.G. Clothing and social inequality in early modern Europe: introductory remarks. Cambridge University Press. 2000;15(3): 359-365.
  13. ↑ FCPS World II SOL Standards: WHII 9c, Social Effects of the Industrial Revolution(1800-1920).2014. Available from: https://www.lcps.org/cms/lib4/VA01000195/Centricity/Domain/10599/Social%20Effects%20of%20the%20Industrial%20Revolution.pdf
  14. ↑ Fashionista. THE TOP 25 FASHION SCHOOLS IN THE WORLD: 2019. Careers. Weblog. [Online] Available from: https://fashionista.com/2019/12/top-fashion-schools-world-2019 [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  15. ↑ Alasdair Donaldson, A.D. The power of fashion. British Council. Weblog. [Online] Available from: https://www.britishcouncil.org/research-policy-insight/insight-articles/power-fashion [Accessed 10 November 2020].
  16. ↑ Vanessa friedman, V.F. Fashion’s Woman Problem. The New York Times. 2018 [Online] Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/20/fashion/glass-runway-no-female-ceos.html [Accessed 10 November 2020]
  17. ↑ Bhardwaj V, Fairhurst A. Fast fashion: response to changes in the fashion industry. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research. 2010;20(1):165-173.
  18. ↑ Barnes L, Lea‐Greenwood G. Fast fashioning the supply chain: shaping the research agenda. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal. 2006;10(3):259-271.
  19. ↑ Niinimäki K, Peters G, Dahlbo H, Perry P, Rissanen T, Gwilt A. The environmental price of fast fashion. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 2020;1(4):189.
  20. ↑ How Much Do Our Wardrobes Cost to the Environment? [Internet]. World Bank. 2020 [cited 10 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/09/23/costo-moda-medio-ambiente
  21. ↑ Bell K. power definition | Open Education Sociology Dictionary. 2013 [cited 2020 Nov 9]; Available from: https://sociologydictionary.org/power/
  22. ↑ Unit 5 Property and power: Mutual gains and conflict [Internet]. Core-econ.org. [cited 2020 Nov 9]. Available from: https://www.core-econ.org/the-economy/book/text/05.html
  23. ↑ Unit 5 Property and power: Mutual gains and conflict [Internet]. Core-econ.org. [cited 2020 Nov 9]. Available from: https://www.core-econ.org/the-economy/book/text/05.html
  24. ↑ Sternlieb G. The economy as a system of power: Corporate systems. 2nd ed. Tool MR, Samuels WJ, editors. London, England: Routledge; 2017.
  25. ↑ Orwell G. 1984. Hernandez B M, editor. Createspace; 2015.
  26. ↑ Kallas S, Academy of Liberalism. Democracy and power, power and democracy - 4Liberty.Eu [Internet]. 4Liberty.eu. 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 9]. Available from: http://4liberty.eu/democracy-and-power-power-and-democracy/
  27. ↑ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bargaining-power
  28. ↑ .Unit 5 Property and power: Mutual gains and conflict [Internet]. Core-econ.org. [cited 2020 Nov 9]. Available from: https://www.core-econ.org/the-economy/book/text/05.html
  29. ↑ Kirman A. (2004) The Structure of Economic Interaction: Individual and Collective Rationality. In: Bourgine P., Nadal JP. (eds) Cognitive Economics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-24708-1_18
  30. ↑ What is rent? Definition and some examples - Market Business News [Internet]. Marketbusinessnews.com. 2017 [cited 2020 Nov 9]. Available from: https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/rent-definition-meaning/
  31. ↑ Unit 5 Property and power: Mutual gains and conflict [Internet]. Core-econ.org. [cited 2020 Nov 9]. Available from: https://www.core-econ.org/the-economy/book/text/05.html
  32. ↑ English D. Eugenics. Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets. 2016;. [Accessed 8 November 2020]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780190280024-0029
  33. ↑ “Eugenics.” [Internet]. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. [cited 8 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eugenics#h1
  34. ↑ Editorial comment. Eugenics Quarterly. 1954;1(1):3. [Accessed 8 November 2020]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.1954.9987157
  35. ↑ Levine P, Bashford A. Introduction: Eugenics and the Modern World. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. 2012;. [Accessed 8 November 2020]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195373141.013.0001
  36. ↑ Paul D. Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present. Atlantic Highlands: Humanity Press; 1995.
  37. ↑ a b Kevles D. Eugenics and human rights. BMJ. 1999;319(7207):435-438. [Accessed 8 November 2020]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7207.435
  38. ↑ a b c d e O'Brien G. Eugenics, Genetics, and the Minority Group Model of Disabilities: Implications for Social Work Advocacy. Social Work. 2011;56(4):348. [Accessed 9 November 2020]. Available from:www.jstor.org/stable/23719874.
  39. ↑ Vincent O'Brien G. Protecting the Social Body: Use of the Organism Metaphor in Fighting the “Menace of the Feebleminded”. Mental Retardation. 1999;37(3):188-200.
  40. ↑ Smith J. Minds made feeble: The myth and legacy of the Kallikaks. Austin, TX: Pro-ed; 1985.
  41. ↑ Trent J. Inventing the Feeble Mind: A History of Mental Retardation in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1994.
  42. ↑ Goddard H. The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness. New York: Macmillan; 1912.
  43. ↑ a b Ellis J. Michael D’Antonio. The State Boys Rebellion. Historical Studies in Education / Revue d'histoire de l'éducation. 2007;:170-171. [Accessed 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.32316/hse/rhe.v19i1.315
  44. ↑ Sanger M. Pivot of Civilization. New York: Brentano’s; 1922.
  45. ↑ Daar J. The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies [online]. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; 2020. Chapter 2, Our Eugenics Past; p.34. [Accessed 9 November 2020]. Available from: www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1kgqwrv.6
  46. ↑ Eugenical Sterilization in Germany. Eugenical News. 1933;18(5):91-93.
  47. ↑ Daar J. The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; 2020. Chapter 2, Our Eugenics Past; p.35. [Accessed 9 November 2020]. Available from: www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1kgqwrv.6
  48. ↑ a b Daar J. The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; 2020. Chapter 2, Our Eugenics Past; p.38. [Accessed 9 November 2020]. Available from: www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1kgqwrv.6
  49. ↑ Daar J. The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; 2020. Chapter 2, Our Eugenics Past; p.46. [Accessed 9 November 2020]. Available from: www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1kgqwrv.6
  50. ↑ D'Antonio M. The State Boys Rebellion. New York: Simon & Schuster; 2005.
  51. ↑ Britton J. Charge women sterilized to reduce county’s tax rate. Jet. 1963;:46-50.
  52. ↑ Daar J. The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; 2020. Chapter 2, Our Eugenics Past; p.43. [Accessed 9 November 2020]. Available from: www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1kgqwrv.6
  53. ↑ Daar J. The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies. New Haven; London: Yale University Press; 2020. Chapter 2, Our Eugenics Past; p.47. [Accessed 9 November 2020]. Available from: www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1kgqwrv.6
  54. ↑ O'Brien G. Eugenics, Genetics, and the Minority Group Model of Disabilities: Implications for Social Work Advocacy. Social Work. 2011;56(4):349. [Accessed 9 November 2020]. Available from:www.jstor.org/stable/23719874
  55. ↑ Dudziak M. Oliver Wendell Holmes as a eugenic reformer: Rhetoric in the writing of constitutional law. Iowa Law Journal. 1986;71:833-867.
  56. ↑ Brokowski C, Pollack M, Pollack R. Cutting Eugenics Out of CRISPR-Cas9. Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine: An International Journal. 2015;6(3-4):263. [Accessed 10 November 2020]. Available from: https:/doi.org/10.1615/ethicsbiologyengmed.2016016260
  57. ↑ Kevles D. The History of Eugenics. Issues in Science and Technology [Internet]. 2016;32(3):45-40. [Accessed 9 November 2020]. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24727059
  58. ↑ Alexander R. Representation and the electoral college. Oxford Scholarship; 2019. Available from: [1]
  59. ↑ [FairVote.org](http://fairvote.org/) | Problems with the Electoral College [Internet]. FairVote. 2020 [cited 8 November 2020]. Available from: [2]
  60. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Wyoming [Internet]. Census Bureau QuickFacts. 2020 [cited 8 November 2020]. Available from: [3](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/WY)
  61. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Texas [Internet]. Census Bureau QuickFacts. 2020 [cited 8 November 2020]. Available from: [4]
  62. ↑ Bachrach P, Baratz M. Power and poverty: theory and practice, by P. Bachrach and M.S. Baratz. New York: Oxford University Press; 1970.
  63. ↑ Krogstad J. 2016 electorate will be the most diverse in U.S. history [Internet]. Pew Research Center. 2016 [cited 8 November 2020]. Available from: [5](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/03/2016-electorate-will-be-the-most-diverse-in-u-s-history/)
  64. ↑ Thornton P. The Electoral College Makes White People's Votes Count More [Internet]. Washingtonian. 2016 [cited 8 November 2020]. Available from: [6]
  65. ↑ Alexander R. Representation and the electoral college. Oxford Scholarship; 2019. Available from: [7]
  66. ↑ Edwards G. Why the Electoral College is bad for America. 3rd ed. Yale University Press; 2019.
  67. ↑ Alexander R. Representation and the electoral college. Oxford Scholarship; 2019. Available from: [8]
  68. ↑ 2. Brenan M. 61% of Americans Support Abolishing Electoral College [Internet]. Gallup.com. 2020 [cited 10 November 2020]. Available from: https://news.gallup.com/poll/320744/americans-support-abolishing-electoral-college.aspx
  69. ↑ IMMIGRATION | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary [Internet]. Dictionary.cambridge.org. [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/immigration
  70. ↑ New immigration system: what you need to know [Internet]. gov.uk. [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-immigration-system-what-you-need-to-know
  71. ↑ Bachrach P, Baratz M. Power and Poverty: theory and practice. New York: Oxford University Press; 1970.
  72. ↑ Milestones: 1921–1936 - Office of the Historian [Internet]. History.state.gov. [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act
  73. ↑ a b c Mckanders K. Immigration and Blackness: What’s Race Got to Do With It? [Internet]. Americanbar.org. 2019 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/black-to-the-future/immigration-and-blackness/
  74. ↑ Surana K. How Racial Profiling Goes Unchecked in Immigration Enforcement [Internet]. ProPublica. 2018 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.propublica.org/article/racial-profiling-ice-immigration-enforcement-pennsylvania
  75. ↑ Breisblatt J. Civil Rights Concerns Continue Over 287(g) Immigration Enforcement Program [Internet]. Immigration Impact. 2017 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://immigrationimpact.com/2017/08/22/civil-rights-concerns-enforcement-program/#.X6kHgWczZb8
  76. ↑ 'Drug dealers, criminals, rapists': What Trump thinks of Mexicans [Internet]. Bbc.com. 2016 [cited 9 November 2020]. Available from: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-37230916
  77. ↑ Pellissery S. Public Policy and Moral Worthiness. SSRN Journal [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2020 Nov 10]. Available from: http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2700513.
  78. ↑ Poin-Poin Isi UU Cipta Kerja Omnibus Law Soal Pesangon hingga Upah. tirto.id [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 10]. Available from: https://tirto.id/poin-poin-isi-uu-cipta-kerja-omnibus-law-soal-pesangon-hingga-upah-f5EK.
  79. ↑ Paddock RC, Suhartono M. Indonesia’s Stimulus Plan Draws Fire From Environmentalists and Unions. The New York Times [Internet]. 2020 Oct. 2 [cited 2020 Nov 10]; World. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/world/asia/indonesia-bill-environment-unions.html.
  80. ↑ Bachrach P, Baratz MS. Power and poverty. Repr. New York u.a; 1979.
  81. ↑ Not the right way to do the job. The Jakarta Post [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2020/10/07/not-the-right-way-to-do-the-job.html.
  82. ↑ Major procedural flaws mar the omnibus law. Indonesia at Melbourne [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 10]. Available from: http://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/major-procedural-flaws-mar-the-omnibus-law/.
  83. ↑ Nugraha RM. Police Identify Riot Initiators during Omnibus Law Protest. Tempo [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 10]. Available from: https://en.tempo.co/read/1397476/police-identify-riot-initiators-during-omnibus-law-protest.
  84. ↑ Arkyasa M. Mahfud MD: Omnibus Law is for the People. Tempo [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 10]. Available from: https://en.tempo.co/read/1394292/mahfud-md-omnibus-law-is-for-the-people.
  85. ↑ Arbi IA. Jokowi dismisses criticism of omnibus jobs law as hoax news. The Jakarta Post [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 10]. Available from: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2020/10/09/jokowi-dismisses-criticism-of-omnibus-jobs-law-as-hoax-news.html.
  86. ↑ Ng S, Deng F. Language and Power. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. 2017;.
  87. ↑ Dragojevic M, Giles H. Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics. Handbook of interpersonal communication. 2014;:29-51.
  88. ↑ Harwood J, Giles H, Bourhis R. The genesis of vitality theory: historical patterns and discoursal dimensions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 1994;108(1).
  89. ↑ Ng S, Deng F. Language and Power. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. 2017;
  90. ↑ Ng S, Deng F. Language and Power. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. 2017;
  91. ↑ Phillipson R. Linguistic imperialism continued. New York: Routledge; 2009.
  92. ↑ Spender, D. (1998). Man made language, 4th ed. London: Pandora.
  93. ↑ Patten A. THE HUMANIST ROOTS OF LINGUISTIC NATIONALISM. History of Political Thought [Internet]. 2006;27(2):223–262. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26222195
  94. ↑ DeVotta N. Blowback: Linguistic nationalism, institutional decay, and ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press; 2004.
  95. ↑ Calvet L. Language wars and linguistic politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998.
  96. ↑ Ng S, Deng F. Language and Power. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. 2017;.
  97. ↑ Benedek M, Beaty R, Jauk E, Koschutnig K, Fink A, Silvia P et al. Creating metaphors: The neural basis of figurative language production. NeuroImage. 2014;90:99-106.
  98. ↑ Loftus E. Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology. 1975;7(4):560-572.
  99. ↑ Xiang M, Kuperberg G. Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 2014;30(6):648-672.
  100. ↑ Hartshorne J, Snedeker J. Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes. 2012;28(10):1474-1508.
  101. ↑ Wakslak C, Smith P, Han A. Using Abstract Language Signals Power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2014;107(1):41-55.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User:GCooper316/sandbox/Approaches_to_Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar_group_10/Power&oldid=3769881"