The Four Forms of Power According to Starhawk

• Power-over: “Coercive power is a form of power that we are all familiar with within hierarchical structures. It is the power that one person exercises over another, or that one group exercises over another, to control resources, impose sanctions and punishments, hire or fire. Ultimately, it is backed by the power of the state, the law, and the underlying threat of force.”
  Example: A boss and her employee, or the police and citizens.
  
  

• Power-from-within: “Power-from-within is a creative power (...). This self-empowering force can manifest as moral courage – the power we feel when we speak an uncomfortable truth or stand up for a value we believe in (...).”
  Example: A person who dares to speak out against racial oppression they have witnessed.
  Starhawk suggests that personal growth stems from this type of power.
  
  

• Collective power: “(...) The power that belongs to a group when we act together. The term ‘solidarity,’ borrowed from the old labor movement tradition, also applies here.”
  Example: The Yellow Vests movement, or a neighborhood association setting up a mutual aid network.
  This form of power embodies the idea of relying on others despite emotional disagreements or diverging personal interests.
  
  

• Power-with: This form of power derives from social and familial privileges, as well as from reputation, but it is used consciously. “(...) One could also refer to it as influence, symbolic power, or authority. This type of power determines how much one’s voice is heard within a group, the weight of one’s opinions, and the respect one commands.”
  Example: An Oscar-winning filmmaker using her platform to denounce a genocide, or a lawyer volunteering to help undocumented people.
  Power-with does not reside in privilege itself, but in the tools it enables (what Bourdieu calls social capital).
  
  

A Critical Perspective on Starhawk’s Typology

It is important to keep in mind that this classification system is not necessarily very robust, particularly since Starhawk’s methodology for defining these categories is not clearly outlined. In our view, these forms of power are porous and interdependent, resisting rigid classification. That said, they serve as a useful starting point for discussion—indeed, we believe this is the primary function of the practical tool on the four forms of power that we have adapted from Starhawk’s work.

However, we pay special attention to two particularly relevant points:

• “Collaborative groups often strive to eliminate power-over and privilege. But when they confuse social power [i.e., power-from-within, collective power, and power-with] with power-over, or fail to distinguish between fairly earned social power and unearned privilege, they risk hindering their members’ empowerment.
  If a group does not fully acknowledge acquired social power and define how it can be earned and exercised, it may end up penalizing and rejecting its most dedicated and capable members. These groups may be equal—but they will be extremely inequitable.”
  
  

• “We must clearly distinguish between forms of power that are fairly earned and those that are not. We need to find ways to identify and limit privilege while encouraging positive ways to gain power, respect, and fair recognition.”
  
  

In other words: some forms of power can be positive if they are used consciously within a group.

in "Comment s’organiser, manuel pour l’action collective", Starhawk, Editions Kambourakis, 2021, pp. 70-71.