Fig 1.0 shows the possible relationship that might exist between the main variables of the study: Self Consciousness, Couple Power and Marital Satisfaction. It has been cited in many studies that there is a positive significant relationship existing between the variables. The study would like to know if the affirmation of the relationship exists in the Philippine context with the househusbands as the respondents of the study.
To support the study, researchers used Private and Public Self-Consciousness Theory by Alan Fenigstein, Michael Scheier, and Arnold Buss developed on 1975, Family Power Model by Ronald Cromwell and David Olson (1975), and Equity theory of John Stacey Adams (1960).
Private and Public Self-Consciousness theory focuses on
Cromwell and Olson classified three distinct domains of power: power bases, power processes, and power outcomes. These three distinct domains were mainly applied on the family since this model was used extensively on many studies pertaining to marital or couple power. Power bases are the resources possessed by an individual or a couple (or the rest of the family members) that forms the footing of whom is the most authoritative among the family. Resources here involve the occupational and income status of the couple just like the idea on Blood and Wolfe’s theory (Olson & Defrain, 1994). Generally, the person with the most resources is the person with greatest power (Blood and Wolfe, 1960). The second domain is power processes. It focuses on the interpersonal relationship of an individual to the family or simply family interaction. According to Cromwell and Olson (1975) power processes include interactional techniques that are salient when a disagreement occurs within the family. Such techniques are persuasion, assertiveness, problem-solving, and ability to demand. Power outcomes is the third domain on which the one who has the greater power is the person who has more say and has the final decision (Gray-Little, 1982; Blood & Wolfe, 1960). Therefore, the person who makes the ultimate decision (such as what to buy,
Raven, Bertram, and John French. Jr. "Legitimate Power, Coercive Power, and Observability in Social Influence ." Sociometry Vol. 21.No. 2 (1958): 83. Web. 2 Aug 2010. .
C. Wright Mills in his article “ The Structure of Power in American Society” writes that when considering the types of power that exist in modern society there are three main types which are authority, manipulation and coercion. Coercion can be seen as the “last resort” of enforcing power. On the other hand, authority is power that is derived from voluntary action and manipulation is power that is derived unbeknownst to the people who are under that power.
Roland Barthes’s the Fashion System is criticized by Schier “there is certainly something to the idea that we say things with what we choose to wear, though we must not press too hard to find a set of rules conceded in every choice.” [Davis, 1992, Page 6]
Power and conflict, important structures in society, clarify difficult concepts in society; although this can be considered an obvious assertion, many different sociological theories attempt to comprehend the centrality of power and conflict and apply it to everyday life. Max Weber
" Family Relations 52.4 (2003): 363-72. Print. Hanson, Richard R. "Optimizing Marital Success: The Conscious Couple Uniting Process. "
get B to do something that B would not otherwise do" (Dahl as cited in Lukes). 1974:11 -. A's power therefore is defined in terms of B and the extent to which. A prevails is determined by its higher ratio of success and defeat over B. Observable behaviour then becomes a key factor in the pluralist approach. to power.
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
Modell, Arnold H. (1924) The private self. Copyright 1993 by the president and fellows of Harvard College. Library of congress cataloging in publication data.
When detecting my past and current relationships, I determined that I experienced power struggles in intimate relationships. Of the six bases of power enumerated in the text, I resisted against coercive and legitimate power. Coercive power, with a punishment resource, reflects the indication of doing something to an individual that they do not desire, or removing something that they do desire. This coercive power suggests inflicting punishments, or
Power is defined in the course study notes as the “ability of individuals or groups to get what they want despite the opposition”. Power is derived from a variety of sources including knowledge, experience and environmental uncertainties (Denhardt et al, 2001). It is also important to recognize that power is specific to each situation. Individuals or groups that may be entirely powerful in one situation may find themselves with little or no power in another. The county Registrar of Voters, who is my boss, is a perfect example. In running the local elections office, she can exercise the ultimate power. However, in a situation where she attempted to get the county selected for a desirable, statewide pilot project, she was powerless, completely at the mercy of the Secretary of State. Power is difficult to measure and even to recognize, yet it plays a major role in explaining authority. In organizations, power is most likely exercised in situations where “the stakes are high, resources are limited, and goals and processes are unclear” (Denhardt et al, 2001). The absence of power in organizations forces us to rely on soley hierarchical authority.
To have power means to have control. The battle for power is a great one in any marriage. It is something that deals with the ability to make an effect or impact. Though it is not necessarily a good or bad thing, it can be used incorrectly on a partner. Some people expect their marriage to go smoothly with no complications along the way. Sometimes they automatically assume their relationship will be egalitarian, that they will share equal roles, but this is not always the case. There can be both constructive and destructive consequences with measuring power and multiple ways to attain it, but in the end, it is one of the most significant issues in marriage.
In everyday life, each ( infant, toddler, adult) observe others person’s actions and behavior and make inferences about other’s attitude based on what they see and find. Psychologist Daryl Ben (1967) who developed SPT (Self-Perception Theory) state that, people develop their attitudes by observing their behavior. Parents and primary caregivers play a significant role in child’s developing self-concept and self-esteem.
Power is defined as the possibility of imposing ones will upon the behaviour of other persons. Power is very complex, contextual, socially malign and socially essential. So why do we seek power? Power is sought so that one can advance their own interests; pass on their personal, religious and social values onto others and for the joy that comes with exercising it. There are three instruments of power described by Galbraith (1983) they are: Condign, compensatory and conditioned power. Galbraith (1983) also explains three sources of power which allow individuals or groups the right to exercise power. These sources are personality, property and organisation.
This information is very beneficial to couples because they will now be more prepared to face this inevitable problem that happens to everyone. Some limitations of this experiment is that all the subjects were from one place. A better sample subject could be obtained from picking the samples from across the countries in order to get a better representation. Also the duration of this experiment was 5 years. It is possible that marital satisfaction could improve in a longer experiment. Although this experiment helps confirm some of the questions about the transition to parenthood, many more questions arise from the result. One such question is if nonparents have more marital satisfaction than parents, why do they get divorced more than parents? In the future it would be interesting to test out the benefits of having children and comparing it to the negatives.
According to Max Weber, power is an aspect of social relationships. It refers to the possibility of imposing one’s will upon the behaviour of another person. Power is present in social interaction and creates situations of inequality since the one who has power imposes it on others.