Three Variants of the Concept of Power: A Comparative Analysis through Theological inquiry

Abstract

This article endeavors to embark on a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted concept of power, employing a comparative and critical lens to examine its various theological underpinnings. The central objective of this study is to discern the affirmative elements inherent in three distinct variants of the concept of power, with the ultimate intention of incorporating these constructive facets into an encompassing integral theory of power. The following are chosen as the subject of analysis: 1) the concept of M. Heidegger (the first option), 2) the concept of M. Foucault (the second option) and 3) the concepts of N. Luhmann and E. Giddens (the third option). The study uses a cultural-historical approach, textual analysis and a comparative method. It has been established that Heidegger, who adopted the concept of the will to power from F. Nietzsche and combined power and being (the main category of his philosophy), could not establish harmony between them. It is noted that the ontological interpretation of power cannot be accepted as adequate. In this respect, Foucault, Luhmann, and Giddens are more correct, since they interpret power as an exclusively social phenomenon. However, their concepts cannot be recognized as fully consistent. Foucault interpreted power as an all-social phenomenon, which is not true. Luhmann and Giddens interpreted power as a social phenomenon, albeit in different ways. The first considers it as a means of communication, and the second - as an active ability to transform. At the same time, both are interpreted by them very primitively. The article concludes that a more adequate concept of power should be sought from other researchers. At the same time, some positive points contained in the analyzed concepts can be included in the integral theory of power. The study and the results obtained in it can be applied primarily in the development of an integral theory of power, and secondly, in the practice of teaching philosophy, political science, political psychology and theology.