ociety itself. Dominance, on the other hand, is a function of personality or of temperament. It is a personal trait. à Furthermore, and one of the most interesting facets of this distinction, dominant individuals play roles in powerless groups and submissive individuals play roles in powerful ones. Some groups indeed acquire an impressive power in society, especially political power, because there are so many submissive individuals who are persuaded to join them and who meekly agree to the norms and ideologies that membership imposes (p. 354).
Bierstedt (1974) does, however, relate power directly to the concept of both force and authority. Although he states that power in neither force nor authority per se, it possesses characteristics of each of these two concepts. Bierstedt (1974) goes on to consider (1) power as latent force, (2) force as manifest power, and (3) authority as institutionalized power. Following a discussion of these definitions, Bierstedt (1974) defined power as "the predisposition or prior capacity that makes the use of force possible. à Power is the ability to employ force, not its actual employment; the ability to apply sanctions, not their actual application" (p. 359). Bierstedt (1974) summed up his perception of power as "the ability to introduce force into a social situation; it is a stance, not action; it is a presentation of a probability of force" (p. 359).
Assessment of Bierstedt's Position Within the Context of Sociological Paradigms
Bierstedt's (1974) position on power is assessed in relat
...