abuse of power essay in english

THE GCSE & GCE ENGLISH PORTAL

For all your gcse & a level english needs.

Macbeth ‘Power’ Essay [Draft]

How does one get an essay done from the entire play? The answer lies in taking key scenes, getting them into a Word document and then highlighting, in yellow, the relevant short quotes that fit the need of the essay when it is done. Once you have the highlighted quotes, you then delete the rest, leaving gaps between the quotes, so you can develop links between the words spoken by one character or another.

I did this and then put an essay together for you, to show you how it is done, but being the creative writer and thinker that I am, ended up with nearly 1300 words. I think it was 1296 words to be precise. So, I had to edit the file and take out relevant bits. What began by using 3 key scenes, then became an essay using 2 key scenes, leading to an essay of 840 words. Now technically, that is 15 words over the 10% limit AQA sets for Controlled Assessments, but if that happens to you, fear not.

Here is the essay in its fullness……..enjoy and try to emulate this.

Explore the ways that power is presented in Macbeth, with reference to the power that Lady Macbeth has over her husband.

Power exists within all relationships and is usually portrayed in fiction as patriarchal, but what the Bard is famous for as a playwright, is subverting the accepted norm and bringing to the attention of the public new ideas relating to the power relationships that exist. His play, Macbeth, about the Scottish tyrant King who is affected by witchcraft and the inward desires of his own wife’s evil intentions, is a good example of this power that exists in such relationships, even regal ones.

In Act 1, Scene 5, after Macbeth has been visited by the three witches on the heath, he writes a letter to his wife back at his castle. When she receives it, the audience begin to see where the power lays in their relationship. When she says “Glamis thou art, and Cawdor; and shalt be what thou art promised” she is expressing her desires to see her husband crowned King, but there is a problem; the present King, Duncan, is alive and well, so she begins to plot his demise. But as she does so she knows that her husband is a man who is “too full o’ the milk of human kindness” to undertake such a task as killing the King.

Shakespeare is using the language of kindness to describe Macbeth but follows this up with Lady Macbeth summoning evil spirits to aid her in her quest for her husband to become King. She says “come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, and fill me from the crown to the toe top-full of direst cruelty!” Never could words uttered by any character in fiction be any more powerful than these, for she is asking for evil spirits to appear before her and make her utterly evil in every way. She wants to kill the King and feel no remorse. She wants to direct and urge her husband in the act of murder and treason because of her lust for power.

When Macbeth returns to the castle and is unsure of the plan to take over the throne, it is Lady Macbeth who tells him to “bear welcome in your eye, your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under’t” when the King arrives. She is telling Macbeth that he must appear to the King as friendly and unassuming; deceptive so as to gain power. What becomes evident is that power does corrupt, even if it is in the sense of the chance of power corrupting someone who is vulnerable to temptation.

Later, in Act 1 Scene 7, Macbeth doubts if he can murder the King. His soliloquy, spoken to the audience, leaves them in no doubt at all about his state of mind. He knows that he is the King’s “kinsman and his subject,” that he is related to the King as well as fond of him and this makes the act of murder harder for Macbeth to endure. He knows that Duncan “hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been so clear in his great office” and so, says that he “will proceed no further in this business.”

At this point, Macbeth is withering under the pressure of his wife’s plan, so she has to control him. She has to be the driving force in the relationship and asks “art thou afeard to be the same in thine own act and valour as thou art in desire?” This shows the difference between Lady Macbeth and her husband, for just as much as he is unwilling to commit murder, she would take her baby and “while it was smiling in [her] face, have pluck’d [her] nipple from his boneless gums, and dash’d the brains out” in order to summon up the will to kill the King.

Clearly, Lady Macbeth is being controlled and is also the controlling influence over Macbeth in this play. This is further worked out as she then tells him to “screw [his] courage to the sticking-place,” so that they [will] not fail.” At this point the audience hear and see that Macbeth has been persuaded to kill, which will ultimately bring about the downfall of himself and his wife, through tyrannical leadership and revenge from Macduff and the breaking of Lady Macbeth’s mind, leading to suicide.

What is evident throughout this play is the way that Shakespeare subverts the role of the woman, creating a woman who is manipulative of her husband, in complete control of him and someone who can drive him forward, through the depths of temptation to the most hideous act of all; murder. The act of regicide becomes the catalyst for the play to continue through the reign of Macbeth, the tyrant King, to his demise at the hands of Macduff and the subsequent crowning of the next King, Malcolm of Scotland. What Shakespeare has done here is merge history with tragedy; the tragic loss of power and control and the tragedy that awaits anyone in power, for as the saying goes, “power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Abuse of Power in The Crucible

Categories: Arthur Miller The Crucible

About this sample

Words: 697 |

Published: Mar 20, 2024

Words: 697 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 489 words

1 pages / 434 words

3 pages / 1262 words

4 pages / 1725 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on The Crucible

The Crucible, written by Arthur Miller and first performed in 1953, is a literary masterpiece that explores the devastating consequences of moral corruption and the perversion of justice. Set in 17th-century Salem, [...]

The concept of theocracy is a central theme in Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible. Set in Salem, Massachusetts in the late 17th century, the play explores the destructive consequences of a society governed by religious beliefs. [...]

The play The Crucible, tells the story of the Salem Witch Trials, which occurred in Massachusetts in 1692. The play portrays the events that led to the community's hysteria as well as the devastating consequences of paranoia and [...]

John Proctor is a complex character in Arthur Miller's play "The Crucible." Throughout the play, Proctor undergoes a significant transformation as he navigates the trials and tribulations of the Salem witch trials. This essay [...]

In the era where women and men were accused, witches were burned, and innocent citizens were rejected, was not only a time of grief, but it also was a time for dishonesty, cruelty, and neglect. The Puritans believed in hard [...]

In Author Miller’s book The Crucible, there are many passages of literature that can teach us valuable life lessons. The characters portrayed in this novel all seem to have their own interpersonal issues, but one character seems [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Why Power Corrupts

New research digs deeper into the social science behind why power brings out the best in some people and the worst in others

Christopher Shea

“Power tends to corrupt,” said Lord Acton, the 19th-century British historian. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” His maxim has been vividly illustrated in psychological studies, notably the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, which was halted when one group of students arbitrarily assigned to serve as “prison guards” over another group began to abuse their wards.

But new scholarship is bringing fresh subtlety to psychologists’ understanding of when power leads people to take ethical shortcuts—and when it doesn’t. Indeed, for some people, power seems to bring out their best. After all, good people do win elective office, says Katherine A. DeCelles, a professor of management at the University of Toronto, and no few business executives want to do good while doing well. “When you give good people power,” DeCelles says she wondered, are they more able than others “to enact that moral identity, to do what’s right?”

In a study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology , DeCelles and her co-authors found that the answer is yes. People’s sense of “moral identity”—the degree to which they thought it was important to their sense of self to be “caring,” “compassionate,” “fair,” “generous” and so on—shaped their responses to feelings of power.

DeCelles and her colleagues developed moral identity scores for two groups, 173 working adults and 102 undergraduates, by asking the participants to rate how important those ethically related attributes were to them. The researchers had some participants write an essay recalling an incident in which they felt powerful, while others wrote about an ordinary day. Then the participants took part in lab experiments to probe how they balanced self-interest against the common good.

The undergraduates were told they shared a pool of 500 points with other people, and they could take between zero and ten points for themselves. The more points they took, the better their odds of winning a $100 lottery. But if they took too many—there was no way of knowing what that tipping point was—the pot would empty and the lottery would be called off.

The participants who had just written about an ordinary day each took roughly 6.5 points, regardless of their moral-identity score. But among those who had been primed to think of themselves as powerful, the people with low moral-identity scores grabbed 7.5 points—and those with high moral-identity scores took only about 5.5.

In surveys, the last group showed a greater understanding of how their actions would affect other people, which is the crucial mechanism, DeCelles says. Power led them to take a broader, more communally centered perspective.

The experiment involving the adults found a similar relationship between moral identity, ethical behavior and innate aggressiveness. Assertive people who scored low on the moral-identity scale were more likely to say they’d cheated their employer in the past week than more passive types with similar moral-identity scores. But among those with high moral-identity scores, the assertive people were less likely to have cheated.

In sum, the study found, power doesn’t corrupt; it heightens pre-existing ethical tendencies. Which brings to mind another maxim, from Abraham Lincoln: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

“Lucifer Effect” by Philip Zimbardo: Abuse of Power Essay

The essay is an argumentative paper which discusses abuse of power and its demerits. The paper is based on the book Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo . The paper begins with an introduction which states a thesis statement. The body of the essay reveals the term ‘abuse of power’ and its political and social drawbacks. Political and social problems in Afghanistan, Tibet, Iraq, and Pakistan are discussed. The dark side of the Iraq invasion is also revealed in this essay. The essay ends with a conclusion which restates the important points and supports the thesis statement.

Argumentative essay: Abuse of power

One of the serious issues that call for the attention of the general public is the abuse of power. It has been inferred as the complete dominance of power over the weaker section by those who possess power. Abuse of power is the condition in which the person who has complete power exerts his/her supremacy over others who lack it. If there is continuous power to the authority in a country, it may lead to abuse of power. Misuse of power causes dishonesty and it becomes a threat to the society. When one who has power rejects to accept the responsibilities it is the start of an ethical immorality. Only the one who has the power will do evil and it is the basic instinct. One should discuss the question as to how a good citizen becomes a mere coward when he is in power. When one attempts to realize a person it is very difficult to understand his strange behavior very easily as the external and internal behavior of a person will be extremely different. The abuse of power becomes more dangerous when the person who has power looks his own well being without caring for his/her fellow beings. People look for only power and at the same time they lack virtue and without virtue one cannot be a good person. The person who is in power seems always blind because he is not aware of his own deeds and he does not think what will be the consequences of his misbehavior. Power is necessary for the welfare of the state but when it is misused by the authority it is abuse of power. Abuse of power is one which is there all over the world. Men in power ill-treat others around him like a puppet in his hand. But on the other side, power can make or change the world into a better one. The people who are in power are of the stern belief that they should be honored by every one. One can view a good example in the case of Adolph Hitler who misused the power because of his self-esteem. Hitler was elected as the ruler of Germany because of his honorable conduct but when he came in power he became a mere tyrant. He was a Nazi and he changed the world itself with his power. He put the prisoners in the concentration camp and treated them so brutally and millions of people were executed as per his order. All these indicate how a person with power turns gradually into a tyrant. Regarding abuse of power, one can deduce that it causes political uncertainty and social anarchy by dividing people into two layers; a dominative authority and a group of struggling people.

The ‘Lucifer Effect’ discusses the basic question regarding the nature of human beings. When good people turn evil by doing cruel deeds, this conversion may be described as ‘Lucifer Effect’. “According to various scenarios of early Christian Church Fathers (from Cyprus, Armenia, Greece, and France), Lucifer was god’s favorite angel.” (Zimbardo). He once disobeyed God and had been thrown out from heaven to hell and he became a mere devil. It is same as the case of human being too. If the good people do some terrible actions, the after-effects will be same as Lucifer, as the society will treat them as evil. Human mind is a mixture of good and evil thoughts and by doing good activities people can overcome from their bad deeds. But when people get the power they simply forget the good quality. But the man in power does not know that it is cause of his own ruin. People are of the belief that it is the power that makes one a monster but on the contrary they are not aware of the truth that it is the people who make the power an abusive one.

On 28 April 2004 The American News agency showed some striking photographs in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The photos are heart touching as the naked Iraqi prisoners are treated in a brutal way. Zimbardo is one among the shocked persons in America after seeing these photos and being a young psychologist he performed an experiment of the psychology of imprisonment with the division of a group of apprentice students into guards and prisoners. The effect was unpredictable as the open-minded students soon changed into great sadists who torture the prisoners in a strange way. Thus he learned from the experiment that “most of us can undergo significant character transformations when we are caught up in the crucible of social forces.” (Marriott). This shows how the good people turn into evil minded. In the Book ‘Lucifer Effect’ the author explains how good people turn into evil. Zimbardo wrote this book mainly based on the 20 th century’s bad examples of the man’s inhumanity to man especially the butchery of 350,000 Chinese civilians by the Japanese at Nanking in 1937. Zimbardo is of the view that the cause of the seeds of the evil flowers in the Abu Ghraib prison is mainly by the Bush Administration who tries to win the war with terror. The book explains about the powerful situational forces which lead man to act in a worse manner indifferent to their open minded character. The students are extremely good and all are open-minded in the beginning of the experiment as mentioned in the book. They shared everything together especially the sorrows and joys but the situation changes when they are placed in the role of guards and prisoners. The noble soul became the devil’s workshop as they start to treat the prisoners in a brutal way even though they know the truth that they are not criminals. The changes that occurred in the minds of the students is mainly from the situation they are forced to play as they are of the view that guards have the power to act as they like and thus they treat the prisoners in a brutal way. When they get the power they start to use it badly and it is the abuse of power. The behavior of the guards indicates how the situation forces them to act in a worse manner and also how the good becomes bad due to course of situation. All these indicate that both the good and evil lie in the very heart of human beings and it is the situation that makes them act good and evil. Thus the book ‘Lucifer Effect’, by Philip Zimbardo is a good example which expresses the abuse of power in detail.

Analyzing abuse of power, one can see the fact that it often leads to social anarchy and it is possible to identify many examples. Abuse of power creates severe political uncertainty and crisis. The soldiers at Abu Ghraib became the victims of their superior’s egotistical behavior and they were forced to work in severe conditions. 12 hours of work in a day affected the mental and physical wellbeing of soldiers. Medias reported that the thirst for political supremacy and power led Bush administration in a world of unending cruelty and they planted the seeds of the flowers of malevolence. In many circumstances soldiers did not get proper instructions and suggestions for their work. It is a common knowledge that power is a kind of political or national strength. Whenever the power is combined with exploitation, the problem begins. Manipulative actions of the people promote unfair, pessimistic, and biased outcomes in the society. Iraq’s Gulf attack (1990-91) ended in loss of more than 100,000 civilians (First Gulf War, 1990-1991). Missiles and other modern weapons destroyed civilian territories and towns. In the journal article entitled ’The Gulf War’, Mitchell Bard shows his willingness to support the evil of power. Here the author comments about the Gulf war and its political crisis. He states; ”The Iraqi leader also made the alarming disclosure that his commanders had the freedom to launch attacks against Israel without consulting the high command if Israel attacked Iraq.” (Bard).

The Abuse of power in policy formation, law making and other administrative reforms constitutes serious social and political problems. Self intentions of a particular group or community paved the way for the violation of policies by other people. In case of the Taliban, Tibetan issue, Military administration in Pakistan and several Latin American and Afro- Asian countries, majority in these nations were forced to obey the rules and regulations of their rulers. Analyzing the history of Taliban one should be able to understand the fact that extreme fundamentalism has implemented strict rules and regulations in favor of Muslim extremists. One can see that abusing of power reached its zenith when Taliban fundamentalists took the political control of the region. The women and children in Taliban were forced to live under the shadow of severe religious rules and restrictions practiced by the fundamentalists. The cruelest face of Taliban rule was explored through their judiciary. Fundamentalist’s justice is extremely brutal and atrocious. The journal article which was published by the name, The Taliban – Horrors To Women, Children And Men gives significant information about the uncivilized culture and the violation of human rights. It says; “There is little to no chance of appealing a case before a judge and jury.” (The Taliban- Horrors to Women, Children and Men).

The exponents of traditional Muslim religion show their willingness to practice a social system which permits them to view women and children as mere subjects. Poverty and ignorance give further imprisonment to the people. Restrictions in dress, education, amusements and religious worships drag the people into the world of unending afflictions. If analyzed, can see that abuse of power has engulfed the Fundamentalist government.

Zimbardo writes about the pathetic condition of American soldiers in his masterpiece work The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo. Life in underground prisons gives horrible and fearful experiences for soldiers. The worst thing is that the majority of military officers could not know the problems of ordinary militants. In other words, their superiors are never ready to accept the realities in the warfield. Through the book Zimbardo reveals how circumstances and political environment can raise cruelty and abuse of power. Trials and punishments sometimes reached the level of personal revenge and utter selfishness.

Desire for power never ends as it adds to one’s acceptability and reputation. To an extent it is an integral part of one’s social life. But abuse of power can never be justified and it will certainly lead to moral evil. Quite often, abuse of power is considered as the prime source of moral evil. It is proved that when someone refuses to accept his responsibilities, moral evils begin to exist especially to those who are exclusively under his or her direct care and control. It can be said that someone gets power when he or she has a considerable influence on the reality of others. So power should be in accordance with the social accord or conventions. One’s competence to inflict his or her will on others can be termed as abuse of power and no doubt it is unlawful. Mental dexterity, social position, physical strength, knowledge, technology, weapons, wealth, or the trust that others have in him or her can be the root cause of abuse of power. When one’s advantage or earnings depends on harming or exploiting others it can be considered as extremely unethical and it is suggested that the main principle of human ethics and morality should be to avoid the abuse of power. It should be treated seriously that the decision to adopt an ethical principle as one’s own is a solely personal one, and cannot be forced on someone. It is not possible that someone will take on a principle that is not harmonious with his or her mental configuration and this will be influenced by childhood experiences. Putting an assistant in place of conflict of interest demonstrates a complete ignorance of ethics. (Abuse of Power).

To conclude, one can infer that the abuse of power is quite common in the modern world and most of the politicians and bureaucrats use it as a weapon to get their things done. Going back to history, there had been different examples of the abuse of power that many monarchs used it well. Analyzing the abuse of power one can understand the reality that abuse of power causes dishonesty, though power is necessary for the welfare and integrity of the nation. Different examples of the abuse of power includes the dominance or supremacy possessed by Hitler and the concentration camps used for suppressing Jews, abuse of power by Saddam Hussain as the president of Iraq, brutal torture of the US Army in the Abu Ghraib jail and the fundamentalist role in Afghanistan. Finally one can see that abuse of power causes political uncertainty and social anarchy by dividing people into two layers; a dominative authority and a group of struggling people.

Works Cited

Abuse of Power. Sibling Rivalry. 2009.
Bard, Mitchell. The Gulf War . Jewish Virtual Library: A Division of the American- Israel Cooperative Enterprise. 2009. Web.
First Gulf War, 1990-1991. Australian War Memorial. 2009.
Marriott, Edward. Torture as Second Nature: The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how Good People Turn Evil . Guardian.co.uk. 2007. Web.
The Taliban- Horrors to Women, Children and Men. Information and Entertainment @ Information- Entertainment-com. 2009.
Zimbardo, Philip. Who was Lucifer and how did He Become the Devil. The Lucifer Effect. 2009.
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, November 10). "Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo: Abuse of Power. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lucifer-effect-by-philip-zimbardo-abuse-of-power/

""Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo: Abuse of Power." IvyPanda , 10 Nov. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/lucifer-effect-by-philip-zimbardo-abuse-of-power/.

IvyPanda . (2021) '"Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo: Abuse of Power'. 10 November.

IvyPanda . 2021. ""Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo: Abuse of Power." November 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lucifer-effect-by-philip-zimbardo-abuse-of-power/.

1. IvyPanda . ""Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo: Abuse of Power." November 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lucifer-effect-by-philip-zimbardo-abuse-of-power/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . ""Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo: Abuse of Power." November 10, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/lucifer-effect-by-philip-zimbardo-abuse-of-power/.

Administrative Evil and the “Lucifer Effect”
The Psychology of Evil Analysis
The Stanford Prison Experiment and My Perception of Human Behaviour
The Harassment of GLBTQ Young Adults
Methamphetamine Use and Employment Rates
Forensic Psychology. Child Testimony in Abuse Case
The Child Physical Abuse as a Crisis
Post Smoking Cessation Weight Gain

TOP CATEGORIES
AS and A Level
University Degree
International Baccalaureate
Uncategorised
5 Star Essays
Study Tools
Study Guides
Meet the Team
English Literature
Arthur Miller

An Abuse of Power

The Crucible is a novel that demonstrates the human abuse of power and ability to manipulate weakness in others to achieve our own goals, using its crop of deceptive and cunning antagonists. A well-known actor who held a role in a theatre representation of the Crucible, Javier Bardem was once quoted as saying that he could “respect people’s faith, but [he could] not respect their manipulation of that faith to create fear and control” (Bardem). This is precisely what Miller is demonstrating in his text, playing on the faith of the Puritans in Salem, of God and of witches. This allows characters like Danforth to keep a strong hold of their political power, assuring they remain there, while Parris and Putnam abuse their power to save face before the public, and carrying out her dangerously selfish goals, Abigail twists that faith and fear to gain power. Thus, because of their ability to manipulate themselves to safety, no one questions their actions, save John Proctor, who angrily asks “why do [they] never wonder if Parris be innocent, or Abigail? Is the accuser always holy now? Were they born this morning as clean as God’s fingers?” (Miller 73) With this statement, it is clear the Crucible studies the abuse of power and manipulation very closely.

Danforth demonstrates an abuse of power, dominating the court by their fear of being accused of witchcraft, or of being condemned for contempt of the court. He bullies them into confessing, threatening them with death or jailing if they don’t. When faced with an honest man, Giles Corey, who won’t give up a name as to not jail his source, Danforth attempts to scare it out of him, menacing him by saying he “[has] no choice but to arrest [him] for contempt of this court,” (90) when the court’s not even in session. When questioning Mary Warren, again Danforth becomes a bully, berating her with question after question, knowing she is weak, and it soon causes her to break, eventually turning her against John Proctor. Danforth pressures her by saying “[she is] either lying now, or [she was] lying in the court, and in either case [she has] committees perjury and [she] will go to jail for it,” (94). Finally, Danforth attempts this manipulation on Proctor, but he will not have it. He refuses to be used as a pawn in Danforth’s mass court bullying, refusing to add to the town’s hysteria. He vows to Danforth that he “will not use [him]! It is no part of salvation that [he] should use [him]” (132). Still, Danforth tries, threatening him with hanging if he doesn’t write his confession, because he plans to post it on the church door, “for the good of the village” (128). In doing so, he could cause more hysteria among the people to later manipulate in court. This is similar to the court’s abuse of power, years later, during the McCarthy Hearings in the 1950s. Joseph McCarthy abused his status in court to gain more power and condemn enemies and those who spoke ill of him. He, like Danforth, ran these proceedings by dominating their respective audiences with the fear of being condemned for either witchcraft or communism, and contempt of court in both. They were presenting their “victims”, who were promised salvation and safety if they answered favorably, with only two choices, “of either being in contempt of [the court] and going to jail or forcing [them] to really crawl through the mud to be an informer,” (Parks 1). Danforth remains at the top of the food chain in court no matter what, manipulating Salem’s fearful into confessing, be it truth or not, to save themselves, seeing the world as only black and white, with Salem being “with [the] court or [they] must be counted against it, there be no road between,” (Miller 87). He carries out this abuse for juridical gain, while other adults in Salem, such as Parris or Putnam, twist and manipulate power for personal gain.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Parris and Putnam are examples of well-respected adults in positions of higher political power as the Minister and a wealthy man, respectively, who irresponsibly abuse the power of that status. On one end of the scale, you have Parris, using his niece’s “experience” to blame others in the hopes of saving his reputation and gain standing as a better minister. On the other end, a rich man seeking more power over the lands by supporting his daughter’s accusations against those owning lands he could buy. Both men are as foul as the witches Salem fears, and prey upon the aforementioned fear to shove their hands further into the cooked jar of power, never being questions by higher authority or suspected because of money and political standing. Giles Corey is the first to call Putnam on this manipulation publicly, by announcing he knows a man who heard Putnam say “the day his daughter cried out on Jacobs, [that] she’d given him a fair gift of land,” (89). But in the end no one dares believe him, or at least look into Giles’ accusation, because of Putnam’s strong reputation of political power and good money. This is also the reason his subtle machinations—including subtly manipulating Parris into conclusions he wants to hear—are often overlooked. Parris, on the other hand, has no political power to abuse. Instead, he manipulates the court, skillfully using his title as minister to have his way, saving his reputation that would have been tainted by the discovery of his daughter and niece dancing in the forest. He also aids Abigail in abusing the hysteria and fear of Salem to rid himself of his enemies, particularly Proctor, who “[has] no love for Parris, it is no secret,” (84). The behavior of these two men is comparable to that of Antoine Tassy, Lord of Kamouraska in Anne Hébert’s French novel, Kamouraska . Tassy is able to physically assault his wife, Elisabeth D’Aulnières, and twist the servants around him to get his way, never being persecuted for it because, let’s face it, trying to condemn a man of high political power is quite a hopeless mission. Thus, Miller’s view that people in positions of power constantly abuse it is represented in his play. Samuel Parris takes advantage of his status as minister in the court, supporting Abigail’s lies, to manipulate power and protect his reputation. Thomas Putnam abuses the town’s witch craze for land. Both men escape prosecution for their actions because of their power in Salem. However, their motives for mistreating their power and manipulating their fear of Salem’s people are far less personal and vindictive than those of Abigail Williams.

Abigail is the most prominent example of power and manipulation, with far worse repercussions, fooling the court and pretending to be God’s voice to get what she wants. Hale declares before the court that “private vengeance is working through this testimony,” (105) when Proctor attempts to show the court Abigail’s machinations. She recognizes the Puritan’s fear of God, and their fear of witches, to manipulate those in power, gaining her own strength in the court and causing mass hysteria to turn in her favor. Her rise to power begins even before the hysteria, starting with the group of girls from the forest, but her tactics are no different: manipulate others to save herself. They fear being caught, and she plays to their terror, telling them if they “breathe a word, or the edge of a word, about the other things, [then she] will come to [them] in the black of some terrible night and [she] will bring a pointy reckoning that will shudder [them]” (19). This threat crafts her iron grip on the girls, allowing her to lead them against the town, lying and condemning folk to save themselves from strife over their actions. Abigail’s hold remains on the girls all through the play, forcing even the most honest to turn from truth and continue their lies “when people accused of witchery confronted [them] in court, [they] would faint, saying their spirits came out of their bodies and choked [them]” (98). This is evident in the scene where Mary confesses their lies, admitting they “never saw no spirits” and “were never threatened or afflicted by any manifest of the Devil or the Devil’s agents” (98). Abigail manipulates the court, using the power she’s gained to say she does God’s work, and Mary falls back to her, carrying out Abigail’s wishes by condemning John Proctor. This is similar to how Abigail got rid of Elizabeth by accusing her in her newfound place of power, so she could be with John, a fact that he addresses, refusing to “give [his] wife to vengeance” (73) when they come to arrest her. Abigail’s attitude of controlling the girls by vicious fear of witchery is easily comparable to that of the boy Jack in Golding’s Lord of the Flies . Jack recognizes the weakness in the group of boys, using their gnawing fear of “the beast” to turn them to his side, against Ralph. Though much more direct, Jack uses his power to threaten the boys on Ralph’s side, such as Samneric, to hail to savagery and chaos, much like Abigail did to Mary. He dominates the island, getting what he wants, and eliminating those such as Piggy and Ralph, who stand in his way. Abigail’s tactic of lying, manipulating fear and abusing her power in court grants her the same reward of getting her way, and pushing aside enemies like Elisabeth. The only difference is that Abigail’s actions come with far bigger consequences, more than Parris, Putnam or Danforth, fleshed out on a larger scale of victims who fell in the face of her machinations.

In the end, Arthur Miller’s Crucible is a fine study of manipulation and abuse of power, shown in various forms, through vicious antagonists, always exploiting Salem’s fear to achieve their own selfish goals and further themselves on the social food chain. What Miller is perhaps attempting to demonstrate through this play is that those in positions of power will always abuse it, especially when faith is involved, because of the “manipulation of that faith to create fear and control” (Bardem), as have done Danforth, Parris, Putnam and Abigail.

Document Details

Word Count 1740
Page Count 6
Subject English

Related Essays

The Crucible is a study of power and manipulation." Select any two or three...

The Crucible: Misuse of power.

The Crucible - Power and Manipulation

The Crucible - Show how the different types of power in Salem combine to br...

Starting a Business

Our Top Picks

Best Small Business Loans
Best Business Internet Service
Best Online Payroll Service
Best Business Phone Systems

Our In-Depth Reviews

OnPay Payroll Review
ADP Payroll Review
Ooma Office Review
RingCentral Review

Explore More

Business Solutions
Entrepreneurship
Franchising
Best Accounting Software
Best Merchant Services Providers
Best Credit Card Processors
Best Mobile Credit Card Processors
Clover Review
Merchant One Review
QuickBooks Online Review
Xero Accounting Review
Financial Solutions

Human Resources

Best Human Resources Outsourcing Services
Best Time and Attendance Software
Best PEO Services
Best Business Employee Retirement Plans
Bambee Review
Rippling HR Software Review
TriNet Review
Gusto Payroll Review
HR Solutions

Marketing and Sales

Best Text Message Marketing Services
Best CRM Software
Best Email Marketing Services
Best Website Builders
Textedly Review
Salesforce Review
EZ Texting Review
Textline Review
Business Intelligence
Marketing Solutions
Marketing Strategy
Public Relations
Social Media
Best GPS Fleet Management Software
Best POS Systems
Best Employee Monitoring Software
Best Document Management Software
Verizon Connect Fleet GPS Review
Zoom Review
Samsara Review
Zoho CRM Review
Technology Solutions

Business Basics

4 Simple Steps to Valuing Your Small Business
How to Write a Business Growth Plan
12 Business Skills You Need to Master
How to Start a One-Person Business
FreshBooks vs. QuickBooks Comparison
Salesforce CRM vs. Zoho CRM
RingCentral vs. Zoom Comparison
10 Ways to Generate More Sales Leads

Why Does Power Abuse Persist?

Table of contents.

Workplace bullying is all too common, and it leaves a negative impact on both the victim as well as the company’s culture. Power abuse fosters an environment of toxicity , and may decrease employee morale. Here’s a look at the psychology behind power abuse – and why it persists.

What is abuse of power?

Power abuse is an issue that most of us have experienced at some time, whether we acknowledge it publicly or not. Controversy and debate around this subject are constantly gaining ground and interest, especially in the workplace.

Abusive people gain and maintain power over their victim with controlling or coercive behavior, and proceed to subject that person to psychological, physical, sexual or financial abuse. As we have seen from the media coverage of high-profile cases, this abuse can go on for years, is often ignored, and may be encouraged by those surrounding the abuser. Not taking action to stop the abuse is a form of abuse itself.

Understanding the psychology behind an abuser’s actions can help explain – but not excuse – why the abuse may continue and possibly increase.

Individuals who are abusive or have narcissistic tendencies may have a narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD. Research from the Cleveland Clinic shows that 5% of the population has NPD. Narcissists have a need to make themselves look impressive, crave admiration and power, lack empathy, and often act arrogantly. When narcissistic behavior exists, you can see an increase in power abuse cases.

In the workplace, people may abuse their power in a number of ways: by choosing to hire (or not hire) based on bias or prejudice; by creating an uncomfortable working environment; and by misusing their power in disciplinary situations. Acts of narcissism and abuse of power can create deeply dangerous and uncomfortable working conditions for employees.

Why does abuse of power persist?

Victims of abuse are often stressed and confused about their situation. This confusion can block the person’s confidence to report the issue, or they ignore it, thinking it will go away in time. It doesn’t.

Often the channel to address the issue leads to the legal department, but law firms can be a breeding ground for bully protection. Those with money or positions of power often have greater access to lawyers. They can quickly exhaust the victim’s ability to afford legal support, and they know it. The power abusers are often in a position to control the legal outcomes.

As a result, these cases often go unreported, undetected and unchallenged, because the victim feels that the threat of action could be worse than the original form of abuse. This creates a vicious cycle in which the perpetrators feel that getting away with the crime empowers them to continue their abusive behavior.

Silent supporters and ‘group shun’

Abusers like to have support for their cause. Their social skills and positions of power can compound the issues by enrolling others in “group shun.” The group – made up of the abuser and those who are weak enough to fear that if they don’t join in, they will be the next victims – acts as a pack to ostracize an individual. Bullies often seek to remain hidden behind a veil of secrecy and cowardice. They influence others to join in so that if they are detected, they can avoid blame by deflecting their behavior onto others in the group.

This issue is rarely addressed in bullying training programs in any depth. Often the individuals involved are not entirely sure what is going on. Group shun can creep over time, and because of its stealth nature, it can be hard to describe to others so that they can recognize it. The targeted individual may become paranoid or delusional, leading to a double whammy of victimization where they feel everyone else has deserted them. When you see colleagues being shunned and ostracized by peers and organizational leaders, do not enable the abuser with your silence or tacit support. The silent witness is as guilty as the perpetrators, allowing the psychological torture to continue. The enablers are perpetrators by acting as accomplices. Cowardice and lack of courage remain the motivation for this inaction. Remember, if the vicious cycle is not stopped, you may become the next victim.

How does abuse of power happen in the workplace?

In a working environment, the abuse of power against staff can manifest in various harmful ways. Abuse usually stems from an individual who holds power (i.e., a boss, executive or manager). These individuals can apply pressure and bully or coerce their employees into difficult or stressful situations . Those who have been with the company for a short period, have an associate-level title, or are from a marginalized background can experience further acts of harassment and discomfort from their superiors. Those who abuse their power may surround themselves with other individuals of power or people prone to agreeing with them, lowering the chance for helpful feedback and behavior callouts.

Power-based harassment can include: threatening an employee by telling them they could lose their job, shifting blame, putting their own interests before the betterment of the staff and company, and other acts of harm. When a person with workplace privileges misuses their power, they can humiliate, threaten or mock staff members. These types of abusive acts of power can further cause work-based trauma.

Staff experiencing abuse of power may be stressed, put under immense pressure, and feel increased distrust toward their job or work colleagues. Overall, abuse of power can lower employee morale, increase employee turnover, and decrease productivity. When companies do not put their employees’ well-being and mental health first, it not only detrimentally hurts staff but also the company as a whole. To avoid employee burnout and mental health trauma, consider how people with power in a workplace can best advocate for those who may be experiencing power abuse.

How can you stop abuse of power in the workplace?

Stopping power abuse and bullying in the workplace means implementing education and enacting support systems at an organizational level. Simply having a policy in place doesn’t always help – where policies do exist, they are often ignored or ineffective.

Consider the following tools to stop the abuse of power in the workplace:

Intervention levels. Have operations systems that allow space for employees to discuss grievances or abuses with executive staff or HR.
Code of conduct. Develop manuals and handbooks alongside an HR team to best protect the rights, boundaries and health of employees.
Disciplinary measures. When preventative solutions are no longer protecting employees, have steps in place to stop and confront workplace abuses.
Support systems. Create spaces where employees are able to safely share their experiences. This can be in the form of affinity groups, human resources, staff surveys and more.

When regulation fails, we need to revert to character, and herein lies the ethical challenge. Character is borne out of moral virtue, courage and honor. In this case, we need to ensure we are building employees of character – those who have the courage to stand up for others, and themselves, and courage from organizations to reward those who do.

The culture of an organization must have systems in place to encourage employees to be aware of behaviors or influences that may not be acceptable, as well as speak up about those behaviors. Organizational leaders, regulators and business schools need to step up, enforce policies, be aware, and understand the implications and risks of what is going on in their own organizations and the liabilities that they face. Individuals need to show courage not to participate, to call out bad behavior, and when faced with the situation themselves, have the language to articulate what is going on clearly.

Character is an undertaught and underrepresented ethical trait in our executive education programs. It is the foundation of good leadership. Bring back character, and the need for articles like this may diminish.

Additional reporting by Sean Peek.

Get Weekly 5-Minute Business Advice

B. newsletter is your digest of bite-sized news, thought & brand leadership, and entertainment. All in one email.

Our mission is to help you take your team, your business and your career to the next level. Whether you're here for product recommendations, research or career advice, we're happy you're here!

Latest Posts
LSE Authors
Choose a Book for Review
Submit a Book for Review
Bookshop Guides

Christopher Featherstone

December 21st, 2023, the abuse of power: confronting injustice in public life – review.

0 comments | 5 shares

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

In The Abuse of Power: Confronting Injustice in Public Life , Theresa May examines several “abuses of power” by politicians and civil servants involved in policy, and advocates for a shift from careerism to public service is needed to achieve better governance. In Chris Featherstone ‘s view, May’s selective case studies and weak defence of her role in controversial events like the Windrush scandal will do little either to forge a new model of British politics or rehabilitate her reputation.

The Abuse of Power: Confronting Injustice in Public Life. Theresa May. Headline. 2023.

The Abuse of Power reveals itself as an attempt to rehabilitate May’s reputation after her acrimonious exit from Downing Street in 2019.

The book examines examples of “injustice in public life”, highlighting the flaws in how government has approached and dealt with these issues. Examining cases ranging from the Salisbury Poisonings and the Hillsborough disaster to Brexit and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, May highlights two factors. Firstly, she argues that it is the natural disposition of many in the public sector to place protecting the public sector ahead of the interests of those they serve. Secondly, she observes the growth of careerism and popularity-seeking amongst politicians, and the prioritisation of this over “the job they are there to do”.

May argues for the necessity of a deep attitudinal change in those in public life, especially from civil servants and politicians.

May’s proposed solution to these pervasive flaws in British public life is “service”, a theme that runs throughout her account of her own political career. As such, May argues for the necessity of a deep attitudinal change in those in public life, especially from civil servants and politicians. Her calls for greater diversity in those recruited to the civil service and a wider selection of candidates to stand in elections are well-intentioned, but unsupported with recommendations for how this can be achieved.

At first glance, her proposal that working for the broad public good could prevent many of the scandals she analyses appears somewhat convincing.

At first glance, her proposal that working for the broad public good could prevent many of the scandals she analyses appears somewhat convincing. The analysis used to form this argument is engaging, especially in those cases where May has personal knowledge, such as the Grenfell Tower tragedy (when external cladding on a tower-block caught fire, killing 72 people) or bullying and sexual harassment in Westminster . Yet, this reveals an underlying theme that accompanies the focus on “service”: May’s attention to governance rather than politics.

This partiality is reflected in May’s scepticism of politicians’ relationship with the media. In a chapter on social media, May characterises politicians’ use of social media as a superficial means of humanising them by showing the coffee cup they use or their typical breakfast. Despite raising important concerns on regulating the use of social media (whilst in Downing Street May initiated a government review of social media regulation, attacking the “vile” messages sent to female MPs), her simplistic and patronising framing of the use of social media in communication between politicians and the electorate is out of touch, and detracts from her argument.

May’s focus on effectively serving the public is coupled with a disregard for the politics of government, the importance of persuading people why policies are effective.

May’s media scepticism continues in her view of what characteristics are desirable in leaders. She condemns both short-term headline-seeking and the media focus that means if a leader does not speak to the media they are “written off.” These reactions against contemporary media and political communication methods are almost quaint, demonstrating wishful thinking for a bygone era of politics. May’s focus on effectively serving the public is coupled with a disregard for the politics of government, the importance of persuading people why policies are effective.

The Brexit chapter in particular highlights this inattention to the importance of persuading people – politicians and voters alike – of her approach. May accuses some MPs, including former Speaker John Bercow, of abusing their power by voting in their own, rather than the “national” interest when debating her Brexit deal. May’s compromise position – that the whole of the UK would remain in a de-facto customs union with the rest of the EU, and the UK and EU would have to agree to the UK’s withdrawal from this de-facto arrangement – received little support from either the remain or from the “hard Brexit” wings of her own party, or from opposition parties.

What stands out is May’s lack of engagement with the other views in the Brexit debates, giving insight into her difficulties building unity in the Conservative party during the Brexit process.

What stands out is May’s lack of engagement with the other views in the Brexit debates, giving insight into her difficulties building unity in the Conservative party during the Brexit process. Conspicuously absent is an explanation of how this judgement of “national interest” was made, other than this simply being May’s opinion. There is a ring of the internal-external attribution problem in her assessment, wherein she attributes her own actions to a personal conviction to pursue a “compromise” position in the national interest, and others’ actions to political machinations for personal gain. The chapter unintentionally highlights a root of the May government’s difficulties in persuading MPs and the public of the efficacy of their approach to Brexit.

The book’s highly selective approach to the cases analysed is epitomised in the chapter on the Hillsborough disaster, when 97 Liverpool football fans died in a crush, the UK’s worst sporting disaster . May confesses that when the tragedy occurred, she believed the “propaganda” put out by the police, politicians, and the media. May was by no means alone in this acceptance of the official line, yet, of the three groups she identifies in promulgating this lie, it is the police who come in for the major share of her analytical ire. As a former Conservative Home Secretary and Prime Minister, and current Conservative backbench MP, the inattention to the torrid relationship between Conservative politicians and Liverpool as a city as well as to the Hillsborough tragedy is a stark omission. Except for a couple of sentences on the role of politicians, the chapter largely diminishes their role in the framing of the tragedy in public discourse. Notably, almost all references are to “politicians”, intentionally skating over the (Conservative) party which they represented.

[May] fails to substantively support her claim and convince readers how Windrush is markedly different from the other abuses she examines.

Similarly, the explanation of the Windrush scandal , in which she was embroiled, is short and historically focused. May’s defence of the fiasco (which saw hundreds of Caribbean immigrants wrongfully issued with deportation notices) is that whilst other abuses of power she examines were to defend an institution, the Windrush case was in defence of a policy. She fails to substantively support her claim and convince readers how Windrush is markedly different from the other abuses she examines. May accuses the US of an abuse of power in the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and yet this would surely be defended by the Biden administration as the enaction and defence of their policy of troop withdrawal. Similarly, May’s defence of the use of the term “hostile environment” in her controversial immigration policy lacks depth. She suggests that when the term was proposed, it clearly referred to people who were in the UK illegally, implying that the controversy stems from its misinterpretation. This assumes it was merely the name of the policy, rather than the contested and controversial views that it was built on, with which critics disagreed.

The underlying message – that greater devotion to public service will solve these disparate and varied problems – falls flat. Her analysis of the ‘abuses’ catalogued reads at best naïve and at worst wilfully ignorant of the pervasive and deeply entwined nature of many of the causes of their causes.

May’s non-traditional memoir is an interesting read, giving some insight into cases that continue to puzzle policymakers (Brexit), and memorably controversial cases. However, the underlying message – that greater devotion to public service will solve these disparate and varied problems – falls flat. Her analysis of the “abuses” catalogued reads at best naïve and at worst wilfully ignorant of the pervasive and deeply entwined nature of many of the causes of their causes. This shallow defence of her time in government will do little to help polish May’s image, relying on unsupported claims about the intention of policies, such as those that led to the Windrush scandal, and selective attempts to blame others, as in the case of Brexit.

This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science. The LSE RB blog may receive a small commission if you choose to make a purchase through the above Amazon affiliate link. This is entirely independent of the coverage of the book on LSE Review of Books.

Image Credit: pcruciatti on Shutterstock .

About the author

Christopher Featherstone is a specialist in US and UK foreign policy and teaches at LSE and SOAS. His research focuses on the US and UK decision to invade Iraq in 2003, President Trump's leadership style and Foreign Policy Analysis.

Book Review: The Conservative Party After Brexit: Turmoil and Transformation by Tim Bale

May 23rd, 2023, subscribe via email.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

Abuse of Power & Corruption

Abuse of power and corruption - opening act.

The opening Act of the play sets up the Birlings as wealthy, powerful characters. They feel that their social class and position are of vital importance.

Inspector Goole's arrival

The family are enjoying an elaborate meal in opulent (expensive and luxurious) surroundings, with servants attending them. They are a fortunate family enjoying their affluent (rich) lives.
Inspector Goole arrives. His presence goes on to show that all of the Birling family (and Gerald) have used their power in immoral ways.
Every one of them uses their power negatively to remove power from a lower-class girl, who already had very little power to begin with.

Mr and Mrs Birling

Mr Birling: as the boss of the company, he used his power to get rid of Eva after she led the workers in their fight for a pay raise.
Mrs Birling: as a leading person in the Brumley Women’s Charity Organisation, she denied Eva any financial help.

Sheila, Eric and Gerald

Sheila: because she wasn't in a good mood, she used her family’s status and power to have Eva fired from Milward’s.
Eric: He used physical and emotional power to force his way into Eva’s lodgings (where she was staying) – he threatened to cause a scene, which would lessen Eva’s social power even more.
Gerald: He used his social status and money to manipulate (influence someone into doing something) Eva into being his mistress.

Abuse of Power and Corruption

Here's a summary of how Priestley explores the abuse of power and corruption in An Inspector Calls .

Conflict over corruption

Sheila and Eric become more and more ashamed of themselves, and their parents’ reactions.
Their attitudes to their own corruption (dishonest or morally wrong behaviour) causes conflict within the family.
Mr and Mrs Birling refuse to accept responsibility for their actions. This causes a rift (break in friendly relations) between them and their children.

Societal corruption

The older Birlings refuse to accept any responsibility for their actions and how they might affect lower-class people.
Gerald and the Birlings show how the higher-class, wealthy people control society with their money and power.
They can destroy the lives of the lower classes on a whim (because of a sudden decision), and never think about them again.

Inspector Goole

The author uses Inspector Goole to highlight these attitudes and to show that many higher-class people don’t even think that their abuse of power is immoral or selfish.
They feel that they deserve their wealth and power, and that those of lower classes deserve to be less fortunate.

1 Plot Summary

1.1.1 Act 1 Summary

1.1.2 Act 1 Key Quotes

1.2.1 Act 2 Summary

1.2.2 Act 2 Key Quotes

1.3.1 Act 3 Summary

1.3.2 Act 3 Key Quotes

1.3.3 Act 3 More Key Quotes

1.3.4 End of Topic Test - Acts 1, 2 & 3

2 Context & Key Themes

2.1 Context & Key Themes

2.1.1 Social Class & Equality

2.1.2 Class Tension

2.1.3 Abuse of Power & Corruption

2.1.4 Socialism vs Capitalism

2.1.5 Blame & Responsibility

2.1.6 Attitudes to Women

2.1.7 Characterisation of Women

2.1.8 Dramatic Function of Characters

2.1.9 End of Topic Test - Context & Key Themes

2.1.10 End of Topic Test - Context & Key Themes 2

2.1.11 Grade 9 - Key Themes

3 Key Characters

3.1 Mr Birling

3.1.1 Mr Birling Analysis

3.1.2 Mr Birling Quotes

3.2 Mrs Birling

3.2.1 Mrs Birling Analysis

3.2.2 Mrs Birling Quotes

3.2.3 Exam-Style Questions - Mrs Birling

3.3.1 Sheila Analysis

3.3.2 Sheila Quotes

3.3.3 End of Topic Test - The Birlings & Sheila

3.4.1 Eric Analysis

3.4.2 Eric Quotes

3.5.1 Gerald Analysis

3.5.2 Gerald Quotes

3.6 Inspector Goole

3.6.1 Inspector Goole Analysis

3.6.2 Inspector Goole Quotes

3.6.3 End of Topic Test - Eric, Gerald & Inspector Goole

3.7 Grade 9 - Key Characters

3.7.1 Grade 9 - Key Characters

4 Authorial Method

4.1 Arrangement & Structure of the Play

4.1.1 Setting, Lighting & Dramatic Irony

4.1.2 Structure & Chronology

4.1.3 Structure & Chronology 2

4.1.4 End of Topic Test - Authorial Method

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Class Tension

Socialism vs Capitalism

Bullying and the Abuse of Power

Original Article
Published: 19 April 2023
Volume 5 , pages 261–270, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

Naomi C. Z. Andrews 1 ,
Antonius H. N. Cillessen 2 ,
Wendy Craig 3 ,
Andrew V. Dane 4 &
Anthony A. Volk ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4475-8134 1

5303 Accesses

2 Citations

19 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Dan Olweus pioneered research on school bullying and identified the importance of, and risk factors associated with, bullying and victimization. In this paper, we conduct a narrative review of the critical notion of power within bullying. Specifically, we discuss Olweus’s definition of bullying and the role of a power imbalance in distinguishing bullying behavior from other forms of aggression. Next, we discuss the changing nature of research on aggression (and the adaptiveness of aggression) throughout the years, the important role of power in these changes, and how the concept of power in relationships has helped elucidate the developmental origins of bullying. We discuss bullying interventions and the potential opportunities for interventions to reduce bullying by making conditions for bullying less favorable and beneficial. Finally, we discuss bullying and the abuse of power that extends beyond the school context and emerges within families, workplaces, and governments. By recognizing and defining school bullying as an abuse of power and a violation of human rights, Olweus has laid the foundation and created the impetus for researching and addressing bullying. This review highlights the importance of examining abuses of power not only in school relationships, but across human relationships and society in general.

Theoretical Perspectives and Two Explanatory Models of School Bullying

Examining the Effectiveness of School-Bullying Intervention Programs Globally: a Meta-analysis

Associations between Adolescents’ Interpersonal Relationships, School Well-being, and Academic Achievement during Educational Transitions

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Dan Olweus was a pioneer in identifying school bullying as a form of aggressive behavior that was important to research. Contrary to public opinion, Olweus argued that being bullied at school was a harmful behavior as opposed to an acceptable right of passage (Olweus, 1978 , 2013 ). Furthermore, he identified being victimized by bullying as a significant risk factor for child and youth development (Olweus, 1978 ). A recent (October, 2021) search of Google Scholar using the term “school bullying” returned almost one million results, indicating the paradigm-shifting importance of Olweus’s classification of school bullying behavior. Bullying is not a transitory phenomenon, but rather represents a fundamental aspect of human behavior (Volk et al., 2012 ) that had been largely overlooked prior to Olweus’s work (deliberately or not; see REF this issue). In this paper, we conduct a narrative review of relevant theory and evidence to argue that Olweus’s formulation of school bullying laid the foundation for developing critical methodological tools for assessing the aggressive abuse of power, and provided a framework for studying the function of bullying for perpetrators, anti-bullying interventions, and bullying beyond schools in broader societal contexts. We begin by examining the theoretical and historical contexts underlying Olweus’ emphasis on power in bullying. We then discuss how power influences anti-bullying interventions, followed by bullying and power beyond the school context. We end with a general conclusion and suggestions for future research.

Olweus’s Definition of School Bullying

Olweus did not just recognize bullying as a problem; he delineated what remains the most widely used definition of bullying (Olweus, 1993 ). According to one of his last papers on the topic, school bullying requires three criteria: repetitiveness, intentional harm-doing, and a power imbalance favoring the perpetrator (Olweus, 2013 ). These three criteria, however, are not equally important in defining bullying. With respect to repetitiveness, Olweus ( 2013 ) said that he “never thought of this as an absolutely necessary criterion” (p.757), as its inclusion was only to help differentiate bullying from trivial, unharmful incidents. Research has shown that repetitiveness is indeed linked to a greater degree of harm (Kaufman et al., 2020 ; Ybarra et al., 2014 ). But there are also unfortunate examples of single incidents of bullying that are quite harmful (e.g., hurtful or humiliating posts online), having in extreme cases resulted in the death of the victim (Andersson, 2000 ). Thus, repetition may function as a moderator of harm caused by bullying rather than being a primary definitional component (Volk et al., 2014 ).

Olweus ( 1993 ) identified intentionality as a critical component of bullying. Intentionality was included in the definition to distinguish between incidents that could cause harm or discomfort (e.g., one child painfully, but accidentally, knocks down another child in a game), but were not intended to be harmful (Olweus, 2013 ). Furthermore, intentionality suggests that youths who engage in bullying actively seek out their target. This definitional component imbues bullying with hostile intent, consistent with the defining criterion of aggression in general. As intent is challenging to measure, recent research has increasingly focused on studying goals instead of intent, given that goals are the tools with which people consciously or unconsciously engage in willful behavior (Dijksterhuis & Aarts, 2010 ). Research has identified several goals associated with bullying (Runions et al., 2018 ; Volk et al., 2022b ). A prominent goal is the accrual of dominance and power (Farrell & Dane, 2020 ; Kaufman et al., 2020 ; Malamut et al., 2020 ; Pouwels et al., 2018a , b ; Pronk et al., 2017 ).

A power imbalance is perhaps the most critical aspect of Olweus’s definition of bullying ( 2013 ) and the aspect he most emphasized in differentiating bullying from other forms of aggression ( 2010 ). Olweus argued that the bully has more power than the person being victimized, which makes it difficult for victims to defend themselves (Olweus, 1993 ). In contrast, bullying is not an aggressive encounter between two individuals of relatively equal power. If the targeted individual can mount an effective defense against the aggressor, this would be considered general aggression rather than bullying (Olweus, 1993 ). Multiple aspects of the power imbalance that defines bullying can be subjective, including the size/degree, nature/type, context, and expression of the power imbalance (Olweus, 2013 ). Furthermore, these can change over time, further complicating the relational nature of power (Pepler et al., 2006 ). The power imbalance can also vary across different bullying interactions and can be related to physical power, popularity, mental acuity, number of allies, and/or localized or broader social dynamics such as classroom norms (Cheng et al., 2011 ; Olweus, 1997 ; Pepler et al., 2006 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2003 ). In cases of cyberbullying, there are even more variables that can potentially influence power imbalances (e.g., technical skills; anonymity; Kowalski et al., 2014 ). It is worth nothing that Olweus viewed cyberbullying as a subcategory of bullying that required greater attention to details such as how power was captured online (Olweus, 2012 ) in order to overcome some of the ambiguities associated with the concept (Olweus & Limber, 2018 ). Heterogeneity in forms of power makes assessing the power imbalance a challenge for researchers, yet its centrality to Olweus’s conception of bullying ( 2013 ) makes it necessary to incorporate. Some researchers have suggested that this imbalance of power reflects changes in the likelihood of costs (e.g., retaliation) and benefits (e.g., status gains) associated with bullying in comparison to other forms of aggression (Garandeau et al., 2014 ; van den Berg et al., 2019 ; Volk et al., 2014 , 2022a , b ).

Why Is Power so Important?

Humans are a deeply social species who evolved large brains to both compete and cooperate with other large-brained individuals to acquire and maintain power (Maestripieri, 2012 ). Similar to many other species, humans have evolved dominance hierarchies that allow for the navigation of power in relationships (Johnson et al., 2012 ). Power plays a pivotal role not only in peer relationships at school, but also across human relationships and society in general (Keltner, 2016 ). In this light, Olweus’s emphasis on the abuse of power captures behavior that is important beyond the school context. Abuses of power lie at the heart of the human experience. Abuses of power characterize, allow for, and can even encourage sibling bullying (Wolke et al., 2015 ), workplace bullying (Vredenburgh & Brender, 1998 ), and intimate partner abuse (Wincentak et al., 2017 ). The evidence is clear that the aggressive abuse of power (i.e., bullying) creates stress that is as toxic to child and adolescent health (Lambe et al., 2019 ) as it is to adult health (Xu et al., 2019 ). Thus, bullying goes beyond Olweus’s assertion of it being a violation of children’s human rights (Assembly, 1989 ; Olweus & Breivik, 2014 ) to being a violation of general human rights, as it also applies to broader levels of social, political, and economic bullying behavior. Illuminating and countering the deliberate abuse of power is the core focus of important recent societal movements, including #MeToo (Kende et al., 2020 ) and BlackLivesMatter (Clayton, 2018 ), as well as movements related to civil rights (Clayton, 2018 ), economic monopolies (Massoc, 2020 ), climate change (Pettenger, 2007 ), the COVID-19 pandemic (Smith & Judd, 2020 ), and growing wealth inequality (Adam Cobb, 2016 ; Kalleberg et al., 1981 ). In all these cases, the difficulty of acknowledging sometimes subjective power imbalances lies at the heart of significant injustices that can take years, if not decades, to recognize and address (Clayton, 2018 ).

The importance of understanding the abuse of power in these domains makes Olweus’s ground-breaking work on schoolyard bullying even more salient in today’s world than it was decades ago. The need to understand the developmental origins of power and its exploitation goes beyond the schoolyard and is central to solving critical social, legal, political, economic, and environmental problems today. Bullying lies at the intersection of these issues, as diverse abuses of power negatively affect the lives of people around the world in many different ways (Elgar et al., 2019 ). The recognition of a power imbalance being central for bullying was not only critical for the definition of bullying (Olweus, 1993 ); it also allowed researchers studying the development of aggression to consider the possibility that aggression is not simply maladaptive (Asarnow & Callan, 1985 ), but rather bullying aggression could potentially be adaptive under certain contexts (Olweus, 1993 ; Volk et al., 2012 , 2022b ). Thus, we next explore the historical and theoretical importance of Olweus’s conceptions of bullying and power for the field of child and youth school aggression and how these conceptions aligned with a shifting view of the adaptiveness of aggression.

The Development of School Bullying and Its Study

An important factor in the increase of research on child and adolescent peer relationships in the 1980s was concerns about the occurrence of aggression and antisocial behavior among youth (including conduct disorder and crime) and the fact that this behavior is almost never conducted by youths alone, but in interactions with peers. In these years, aggression was seen as the primary determinant of peer rejection (dislike), and thus associated with poor social skills and negative repercussions in the peer group (see, e.g., Asarnow et al., 1985 ; Asher & Coie, 1990 ). In the context of this work, distinctions were made between various forms and functions of aggression, most notably physical versus relational aggression and proactive versus reactive aggression (e.g., Little et al., 2003 ). Bullying was seen as a form of proactive aggression (Dodge & Coie, 1987 ) and a major cause for peer rejection, dislike, and maladjustment in various domains (Newcomb et al., 1993 ), most markedly, low social status. Olweus ( 1993 ) notably disagreed with what was then the dominant perception of bullies as insecure and socially unskilled. In contrast, he argued that their behavior was power-seeking, reward-driven (i.e., potentially adaptive), and sustained by average or high self-esteem as well as anxiety.

Not long after these arguments, the general picture of aggression in the study of child and adolescent peer relationships dramatically changed towards Olweus’s conceptions when researchers became interested in popularity (LaFontana & Cillessen, 1998 ; Parkhurst & Hopmeyer, 1998 ). Originally, in the assessment of peer relations, researchers focused on sociometrically assessing who youth “like the most” and “like the least” in their classroom or grade (Coie et al., 1982 ). In this era of peer relations research, high status referred to peer acceptance and low status to peer rejection. Indeed, all forms and functions of aggression correlated negatively with acceptance and positively with rejection. However, when peer relations researchers began to also ask youths who they thought were “most popular” and “least popular,” the picture of the role of aggression in the peer group quickly became more nuanced. Rodkin et al. ( 2000 ) identified two types of high-status peers: those who are well-liked and prosocial (“models”) and those who are seen as cool and aggressive (“toughs”). There is clear evidence that peer acceptance and popularity are not identical (see, for a meta-analysis, van den Berg et al., 2020 ), and a robust finding is the reversal of the correlation of measures of aggression and antisocial behavior with peer acceptance versus popularity.

As predicted by Olweus ( 1993 ), this includes measures of bullying. The consistently positive correlation between popularity and bullying at school suggests that bullying offers a degree of adaptiveness. Consistent with both sociometric findings and Olweus’s early assertions ( 1993 ), Sutton and colleagues ( 1999 ) argued against the “social skills deficit” perspective of bullying and instead suggested that bullying is associated with social cognitive skills and theory of mind (Shakoor et al., 2012 ) that are required to manipulate and organize others, as well as to inflict harm in subtle ways while avoiding detection. This perspective has led to a more nuanced picture of bullying (particularly as practiced by “pure” bullies versus bully-victims; Volk et al., 2014 ) as a complex behavior that includes social skills and is associated with high status and rewards in the peer group (Berger, 2007 ; Pouwels et al., 2018a , b ; Reijntjes et al., 2013 ). These same behaviors and traits often characterize cyberbullies (Kowalski et al., 2014 ; Olweus, 2012 ) and appear to persist across cultures (Smith et al., 2016 ). These findings are consistent with Olweus’s ( 1993 ) conceptualization of bullies as ringleaders who are capable of using social power to influence the social roles played by those around them, particularly those who would assist them (O’Connell et al., 1999 ; Salmivalli, 2010 ; Stellwagen & Kerig, 2013 ). This role-oriented approach to bullying has been validated by a separate body of peer relations research that has emphasized the importance of bullying power imbalances in promoting not only different roles among peers (e.g., reinforcing versus defending), but also in the adaptiveness of those ancillary bullying roles (Garandeau et al., 2014 ; Lambe et al., 2017 ; Spadafora et al., 2020 ).

One question that has intrigued researchers is whether the association between bullying and social power emerges for the first time in adolescence or already exists at earlier ages. On the one hand, there is evidence that the associations of peer acceptance and popularity with bullying and its underlying motives change from middle childhood to early adolescence (Caravita & Cillessen, 2012 ). On the other hand, researchers with an evolutionary perspective have argued that the association between aggression and power has long been observed among animals, and that it is not limited to adolescence, but exists in peer groups from a very early age on, including preschool groups (Hawley, 2002 , 2003 ; Kolbert & Crothers, 2003 ; Pellegrini, 2001 ). Indeed, among preschoolers, bullying perpetration is associated with fewer social costs than general aggressive behavior (Ostrov et al., 2019 ). Hence, bullying should be placed in a life-span developmental perspective, not only looking backward from adolescence into its earlier developmental roots, but also forward. The persistence of bullying into adulthood (i.e., a failure to “grow out” of the behavior) highlights the contribution of Olweus’s focus on bullying and power and the need for interventions to reduce bullying by increasing the costs and diminishing the benefits for perpetrators of bullying (Olweus & Limber, 2010 ).

Power and Bullying Interventions

In drawing attention to bullying as a particular type of aggression characterized by an imbalance of power, Olweus identified a challenging behavior for researchers and practitioners to address through interventions. As noted earlier, the costs of bullying are lower than other types of aggression, as bullying is done selectively under favorable circumstances in which the victim is unlikely to retaliate, be defended by bystanders, or evoke sympathy from peers (Veenstra et al., 2010 ; Volk et al., 2014 ). Furthermore, although bullies are disliked by some peers and at risk for a range of antisocial behaviors, developmental research has supported Olweus’s view that bullying is goal-directed aggression that can be beneficial for some individuals in some circumstances (Olweus, 1993 ), especially as a means to signal attractive or intimidating attributes to bystanders. This is evidenced by positive associations with popularity, number of dating and sexual partners, dominance, and access to resources (e.g., Dane et al., 2017 ; Reijntjes et al., 2013 , 2018 ; Volk et al., 2022b ). Reducing a behavior that affords a favorable cost–benefit ratio is, at least in the short term, a daunting task.

Nevertheless, Olweus took on this challenge by developing the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, a comprehensive whole-school approach that addressed bullying in schools with school-wide, classroom, individual, and community components (Limber et al., 2018 ). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) was designed to take a social ecological approach to bullying, by restructuring the school environment to shift power imbalances by reducing opportunities and rewards for bullying. The goal was to build a sense of community based on values of equity and inclusion among students and adults in the school environment (Olweus, 1993 ). These principles are then translated into specific interventions to promote the prosocial use of power at the individual, classroom, school, and community levels and to create a climate in which all children feel safe and included (Olweus & Limber, 2010 ). Specifically, teachers and other adults were encouraged to set limits on bullying, model and reinforce appropriate behavior, and provide appropriate consequences for bullying and rule violations, especially by supervising settings where bullying was likely to occur (Limber et al., 2018 ). The OBPP thus has a broad range of components that highlight the importance of operating at different ecological levels (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ). It is worth noting that while bullying is ubiquitous across cultures, there are cross-cultural differences in the rates of bullying, its forms, and its correlates (Smith et al., 2016 ). These differences demonstrate how bullying can, and does, respond to different culturally mediated costs and rewards (Volk et al., 2022b ). Evaluations of OBPP have demonstrated that changing environments and addressing power imbalances among students, peer groups, and in classrooms have been associated with reductions of bullying behavior (Limber et al., 2018 ).

Recent meta-analytic evidence confirms that the most promising means to reduce bullying has been when interventions were able to make conditions for bullying less favorable through changes in multiple ecological contexts (Gaffney et al., 2021 ). Specifically, interventions that provide all members of a school community, including peers and parents, with informal opportunities to reduce the benefits that may be achieved through the exploitation of a power imbalance, had larger effects on reducing bullying and victimization than programs in which these aspects were absent (Gaffney et al., 2021 ). Conversely, anti-bullying programs that focused on improving individual youths’ deficits in socio-emotional skills such as empathy, problem-solving skills, and self-control were less effective in reducing bullying perpetration and victimization, possibly because these programs ignored the ecological contexts that support the utility of power in bullying. These results may reflect Olweus’s view of bullying as a predatory exploitation of an advantage in power ( 1993 ), which suggests that a lack of social skills may not be a contributing factor. These findings also highlight that bullying is a problem that transcends individual relationships, which Olweus noted ( 2014 ) and has been implemented in other successful socio-ecological interventions (e.g., KiVa; Gaffney et al., 2019a , b ).

Although interventions that focus on changing contexts to make the results of bullying less favorable have had some success, research has revealed several challenges and limitations. Despite being beneficial overall, anti-bullying interventions have only been modestly effective, on average, reducing perpetration by 19–20% and victimization by 15–16% (Gaffney et al., 2019a , b ), and some have proven to be ineffective or iatrogenic (Merrell et al., 2008 ). Anti-bullying interventions are generally less effective with adolescents, who may value some of the social benefits of bullying more than children, such as attracting dating partners and gaining popularity (e.g., Yeager et al., 2015 ). These programs have also been less effective with popular youth (Garandeau et al., 2014 ), who may be unwilling to forego the benefits they can receive by exploiting a power advantage derived from high status. In addition, interventions that encourage bystanders to defend victims from bullies are less effective in reducing victimization than programs in which this is absent (Gaffney et al., 2021 ), which may demonstrate the challenge of confronting powerful perpetrators. Furthermore, anti-bullying interventions for cyberbullying, though effective, produce even more modest reductions in bullying perpetration (10–15%) and victimization (14%) than programs targeting traditional bullying (Gaffney et al., 2019a , b ). The results with cyberbullying interventions identify a new challenge—adapting anti-bullying approaches inspired by Olweus’s work to bullying in a cyber context in which anonymity, disinhibition due to a lack of face-to-face interactions, and obstacles to parental monitoring limit opportunities to make online conditions for bullying less favorable (Kowalski et al., 2014 ).

In addition, a failure to acknowledge the power imbalance inherent in bullying can facilitate the common harmful recommendation by adults and clinical practitioners: victims should fight back (see, for further discussion, Lochman et al., 2012 ). This lack of awareness about the role of power may also explain why it is the most common strategy reported by children and an approach they believe will be successful (Black et al., 2010 ). Unfortunately, while direct retaliation might protect an individual, it does not remove the bully’s option of finding another potentially weaker victim who lacks protection or the strength to defend themselves (Veenstra et al., 2010 ), or of retaliating when the power is once again back in the bully’s favor (e.g., when the victim’s friends are gone; Spadafora et al., 2020 ). Moreover, it is not always a feasible option for a victim to fight back or contact an adult or other appropriate authority figure. In fact, research demonstrates that fighting back can make the problem worse, as it may motivate the bully to avoid losing face or protect their power (Craig & Pepler, 1997 ; Sulkowski et al., 2014 ; Volk et al., 2014 ) and thus retaliation can become iatrogenic. Among adults, a failure to recognize power imbalances can lead to blaming victims for not helping themselves (Gupta et al., 2020 ; Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006 ). Finally, a belief that fighting back is all that is required to eliminate it reinforces the idea of bullying as a harmless right of passage—the very antithesis of Olweus’s message ( 1993 ).

Recent innovations in anti-bullying intervention research have sought to address the challenges that limit effectiveness by not only focusing on preventing bullying, but on fostering prosocial behavior (Ellis et al., 2016 ), in line with Olweus’s emphasis on modeling and reinforcing appropriate behavior in the OBPP anti-bullying intervention (Limber et al., 2018 ). Rather than discouraging bullies from pursuing valued benefits (e.g., popularity, romantic partners), this intervention acknowledges the goal-directed nature of bullying and provides structured opportunities for youth to experience using prosocial behavior as an equally effective means to obtain desired goals (Ellis et al., 2016 ). When combined with existing intervention components that are known to be effective (see above), such innovations offer a roadmap for diverting students’ behavior away from exploiting power through bullying to achieve personal gains and instead encouraging prosocial conduct that can yield similar but mutual benefits to those who cooperate with one another. Thus, Olweus’s discussion of bullying and power has had important implications for the way that bullying has not only been studied, but in how bullying interventions have been designed. Critically though, we view Olweus’s ideas about bullying and power as having an important impact above and beyond schools.

Bullying and Power Beyond the School

School bullying thus remains a serious issue, but it is likely to remain an unsolvable issue if children continue to see successful examples of bullying modeled in homes, relationships, workplaces, and governments. Bullying is a developmental phenomenon that extends beyond the school years. As individuals age, other forms of developmentally relevant aggressive behaviors emerge (dating violence, sexual harassment, workplace bullying) and are implemented to exert power, harm, and influence (Farrel & Vaillancourt, 2021 ; Pepler et al., 2006 ). A developmental perspective shows that bullying behavior, and the rewards associated with it, do not stop in adolescence but persist into the social contexts of adults. Furthermore, the social ecological perspective highlights the importance of external ecological impacts, such as parents, communities, and governments, and how bullying and the abuse of power are an issue that deeply involves, but also transcends, the school setting. For example, when consistent efforts towards altering the power structure were abandoned at higher ecological levels (e.g., government and community support), the Norwegian OBPP failed to have significant effects and bullying returned to pre-intervention levels (Roland, 2011 ). These multiple layers of factors that can influence and promote imbalances of power and bullying beyond schools and into many other aspects of child and adult life reveal an important reason why bullying has proven so challenging to eliminate.

It is thus no mistake that Olweus called on adults to actively participate in bullying interventions (Olweus & Limber, 2010 ). Bullying behaviors modeled by persons in positions of leadership show how school bullying is a complex ecological issue that also involves adults’ behavior. We take his message that school bullying is harmful and use it to encourage school bullying researchers to take steps towards a broader understanding of the abuse of power not only among children, but in diverse settings and individuals across the lifespan. For example, in a longitudinal study of a purple (mixed Republican and Democrat) state before and after Trump’s election, Huang and Cornell ( 2019 ) found an increase in students’ reports of being bullied, as well as teasing about racial ethnicity in schools, following Trump’s victory in 2016. Interestingly, this increase was found only in parts of the state with a Republican (Trump) voter preference in the 2016 election, presumably due to youths emulating their locally popular President. The societal rewards of bullying continue across the lifespan, including financial, business, and political power for adults (e.g., our previous list of modern injustices).

The nursing profession, for example, has perhaps been more active than any other in identifying internal and external issues of professional bullying (Wilson, 2016 ). Using Olweus’s conceptualization of bullying, researchers have identified how nurses face serious mental, physical, and financial risks from bullying by fellow nurses, doctors, and even patients (Wilson, 2016 ). Bullying is found in many other workplaces, leading to the creation of anti-bullying interventions that aim to reduce it. These adult interventions are often modeled on principles discovered in school bullying research, suggesting that work done with children can also apply to adults, and vice versa (Gupta et al., 2020 ). As noted earlier, there has been a growing outcry against abuses of power in the adult world that parallel the calls for action against bullying in schools, albeit with less broad support (Klein, 2014 ). The resistance to change in the adult abuse of power in many ways mirrors the stubborn resistance to decreasing school bullying through intervention efforts (Gaffney et al., 2019a , b , 2021 ). It is likely that some of the resistance among adults is similar to that among children—groups and individuals who have power are often loath to share it because of the benefits it affords. That selfish lack of support by those with power is perhaps one of the reasons that adults have failed to address their own abuses of power, alongside a lack of determination to vigorously fight against school bullying (Roland, 2011 ).

On the other hand, evidence is now clear how bullying research, as inspired by Olweus’s work, has been received by the broader public. As noted, a Google Scholar search of “bullying” returned one million results, but a general Google search of “bullying” returned 4.75 billion results (October, 2021). Bullying has clearly captured the attention of both academics and the general public. We argue that the reason for this attention to bullying is that, although humans can show a capacity for bullying and the abuse of power (Pellegrini, 2001 ), they can also show a deeply egalitarian, negative response to the abuse of power imbalances (Klein, 2014 ).

This bias towards the fair use of power appears to be both biologically predisposed and culturally reinforced. From a biological perspective, even infants appear to tell the difference between a respectful leader versus an abusive, bullying, leader (Margoni et al., 2018 ). In every hunter-gatherer culture observed, social leveling and/or egalitarian mechanisms exist to minimize power imbalances (e.g., Briggs, 1970 ; Marlowe, 2010 ; Marshall, 2013 ). Cross-culturally, there is wide support for underdogs, particularly in the context of promoting equal contests (Goldschmied et al., 2018 ). This universality, combined with its appearance early in development, has led researchers to suggest that a bias against power imbalances, and in favor of egalitarian or leveling mechanisms, is partly due to an evolved adaptation (Cheng, 2020 ; Klein, 2014 ). Thus, we argue that bullying research has been extremely effective in drawing attention to issues of exploiting an imbalance of power because many individuals across cultures have a strong bias against inequality, particularly in the context of aggressive competition.

An interest in power in relation to human behavior is not unique to bullying research. Researchers and theorists from a wide range of fields have been interested in power for decades, including philosophy, political science, sociology, feminist studies, and psychology (Allen, 1998 ; Bachrach & Baratz, 1962 ; Dahl, 1957 ; Emerson, 1962 ; Foucault, 1982 ; Galinsky et al., 2003 ; Keltner et al., 2003 ; Lukes, 1986 ). In many of these works, power is considered ubiquitous and fundamental to human behavior (Adler, 1966 ; Dahl, 1957 ; Emerson, 1962 ; Foucault, 1982 ; Keltner et al., 2003 ), and the pursuit of power is seen as a “recurrent and pervasive challenge faced by individuals in all human societies” (Cheng et al., 2013 , p. 103). In these various disciplines, power has been defined slightly differently, though there are general themes. Power refers to the ability or capacity to control and modify others’ states, or to control resources (both their own and others’) without interference (Dahl, 1957 ; Galinsky et al., 2003 ; Keltner et al., 2003 ; Lukes, 1986 ). Furthermore, power is understood as a property of relationships, rather than individuals; power is always relative to whom one has power over (Dahl, 1957 ; Emerson, 1962 ). Finally, power is multidimensional. This means that there are various dimensions upon which one can hold or exemplify power (Adler, 1966 ; Pratto & Espinoza, 2001 ; Rodkin et al., 2015 ; Volk et al., 2014 ). Even a brief search of these disparate literatures reveals the pervasive influence of Olweus’s descriptions of power (e.g., its subjectivity) as well as its use in bullying (e.g., controlling others; Olweus, 1993 , 2010 , 2014 ).

In addition, these literatures agree with Olweus ( 2014 ) that there are different ways of using power that include both prosocial (e.g., defending) and antisocial (e.g., bullying) behaviors. As such, there are different ways to gain power or wield one’s power. Individuals can gain power using altruistic means, building coalitions, gaining allies, being positive leaders, and supporting group cooperation (Cheng, 2020 ; Cheng et al., 2013 ; Farrell & Dane, 2020 ; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001 ; Johnson et al., 2012 ; O’Gorman et al., 2009 ). For example, while Foucault discussed pathological forms of power, he contrasted them with pastoral power that emphasizes the needs of others, thus promoting the community as a whole (Foucault, 1982 ). Thus, different literatures describe individuals with power as using it in both prosocial ways (e.g., defenders, liked peers, prestigious individuals, positive leaders) and/or antisocial ways (e.g., bullies, popular-aggressive peers, dominant individuals, feared tyrants). This reveals that power itself is not inherently good or bad. Instead, it may be our use of power that best illustrates the importance of bullying research and the need to understand and promote the prosocial uses of power. In this light, Olweus et al. ( 2018 ) emphasized that intervention and its aims should be seen as “principles, procedures and mechanisms designed to create a safe and humane school environment where bully-victim problems are systematically addressed, handled and prevented” (p.115).

Conclusions

Despite the importance of understanding power in school bullying, we acknowledge the difficulties of measuring and assessing power in schools and beyond. Because power is multidimensional, relational (i.e., relative to the person one has power over) and systemic (certain individuals are privileged in society), it is extremely complex to assess at all these levels. Yet, if we can develop accurate and reliable measures of relational power in children and adolescence and beyond, we have the potential to better understand and ameliorate human relationships at every level.

By repeatedly calling attention to the importance of power in school bullying, Olweus identified the means and motive for humanity to address the toxic abuses of power not only towards school children, but in society at large. This abuse of power has crucial implications for a vast array of interdisciplinary (and transdisciplinary) research and practices. We therefore urgently call for our colleagues studying school bullying and power to consider not only how that knowledge can be applied beyond the school, but also how knowledge of power and bullying beyond the school can help to prevent it within schools. We believe that Olweus himself was moving towards (2014) this recommendation. As scholars of bullying and power, it is critical to work with schools and communities to facilitate change and ensure that all children and youth are safe from peer abuse where they live, learn, and play. Future bullying research must connect with other areas of research on human behavior to foster a greater understanding of how to ameliorate the abuse of power in our schools and our societies.

Adam Cobb, J. (2016). How firms shape income inequality: Stakeholder power, executive decision making, and the structuring of employment relationships. Academy of Management Review, 41 (2), 324–348.

Article Google Scholar

Adler, A. (1966). The psychology of power. Journal of Individual Psychology, 22 , 166–172.

PubMed Google Scholar

Allen, A. (1998). Rethinking power. Hypatia, 13 (1), 21–40.

Andersson, E. (2000). Dead boys’ dad grills student at inquest. The Globe and Mail . https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/dead-boys-dad-grills-student-at-inquest/article25457796/ . Retrieved September 24, 2022.

Asarnow, J. R., & Callan, J. W. (1985). Boys with peer adjustment problems: Social cognitive processes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53 (1), 80–87.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Asher, S. R., & Coie, J. D. (1990). Peer rejection in childhood . Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Assembly, U. G. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations, Treaty Series, 1577 (3), 1–23.

Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review, 56 (4), 947–952.

Berger, K. S. (2007). Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? Developmental Review, 27 (1), 90–126.

Black, S., Weinles, D., & Washington, E. (2010). Victim strategies to stop bullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8 , 138–147.

Briggs, J. L. (1970). Never in anger: Portrait of an Eskimo family . Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development . Harvard University Press.

Caravita, S. C. S., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2012). Agentic or communal? Associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle childhood and early adolescence. Social Development, 21 , 376–395.

Cheng, J. T. (2020). Dominance, prestige, and the role of leveling in human social hierarchy and equality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33 , 238–244.

Cheng, Y. Y., Chen, L. M., Ho, H. C., & Cheng, C. L. (2011). Definitions of school bullying in Taiwan: A comparison of multiple perspectives. School Psychology International, 32 (3), 227–243.

Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104 (1), 103–125.

Clayton, D. M. (2018). Black lives matter and the civil rights movement: A comparative analysis of two social movements in the United States. Journal of Black Studies, 49 (5), 448–480.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18 , 557–569.

Craig, W., & Pepler, D. J. (1997). Observations of bullying and victimization in the schoolyard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 13 , 41–60.

Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 2 , 201–215.

Dane, A. V., Marini, Z. A., Volk, A. A., & Vaillancourt, T. (2017). Physical and relational bullying and victimization: Differential relations with adolescent dating and sexual behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 43 (2), 111–122.

Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2010). Goals, attention, and (un) consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 61 , 467–490.

Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 , 1146–1158.

Elgar, F. J., Gariepy, G., Dirks, M., Walsh, S. D., Molcho, M., Cosma, A., & Craig, W. (2019). Association of early-life exposure to income inequality with bullying in adolescence in 40 countries. JAMA Pediatrics , 173 (7), e191181-e191181.

Ellis, B. J., Volk, A. A., Gonzalez, J. M., & Embry, D. D. (2016). The meaningful roles intervention: An evolutionary approach to reducing bullying and increasing prosocial behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26 (4), 622–637.

Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27 (1), 31–41.

Farrell, A. H., & Dane, A. V. (2020). Bullying, victimization, and prosocial resource control strategies: Differential relations with dominance and alliance formation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 14 (3), 270.

Farrell, A. H., & Vailancourt, T. (2021). The impact of childhood bullying trajectories on young adulthood antisocial trajectories. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 1–15.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8 , 777–795.

Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., Espelage, D. L., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019a). Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45 , 134–153.

Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2019b). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45 , 111–133.

Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). What works in anti-bullying programs? Analysis of effective intervention components. Journal of School Psychology, 85 , 37–56.

Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (3), 453–466.

Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Differential effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on popular and unpopular bullies. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35 (1), 44–50.

Goldschmied, N., Galily, Y., & Keith, K. (2018). Evidence for cross-cultural support for the underdog: Is the affiliation driven by fairness and competence assessments? Frontiers in Psychology, 9 (2246), 1–7.

Gupta, P., Gupta, U., & Wadhwa, S. (2020). Known and unknown aspects of workplace bullying: A systematic review of recent literature and future research agenda. Human Resource Development Review, 19 (3), 263–308.

Hawley, P. H. (2002). Social dominance and prosocial and coercive strategies of resource control in preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26 , 167–176.

Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49 , 279–309.

Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22 (3), 165–196.

Huang, F. L., & Cornell, D. G. (2019). School teasing and bullying after the presidential election. Educational Researcher, 48 (2), 69–83.

Johnson, S. L., Leedom, L. J., & Muhtadie, L. (2012). The dominance behavioral system and psychopathology: Evidence from self-report, observational, and biological studies. Psychological Bulletin, 138 (4), 692–743.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Kalleberg, A. L., Wallace, M., & Althauser, R. P. (1981). Economic segmentation, worker power, and income inequality. American Journal of Sociology, 87 (3), 651–683.

Kaufman, T. M., Huitsing, G., & Veenstra, R. (2020). Refining victims’ self-reports on bullying: Assessing frequency, intensity, power imbalance, and goal-directedness. Social Development, 29 (2), 375–390.

Keltner, D. (2016). The power paradox: How we gain and lose influence . Penguin.

Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110 , 265–284.

Kende, A., Nyúl, B., Lantos, N. A., Hadarics, M., Petlitski, D., Kehl, J., & Shnabel, N. (2020). A needs-based support for# MeToo: Power and morality needs shape women’s and men’s support of the campaign. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 (593), 1–19.

Klein, S. (2014). Survival of the nicest: How altruism made us human and why it pays to get along . The Experiment.

Kolbert, J. B., & Crothers, L. M. (2003). Bullying and evolutionary psychology: The dominance hierarchy among students and implications for school personnel. Journal of School Violence, 2 (3), 73–91.

Kowalski, R. M., Guimetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattaner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140 (4), 1073–1137.

LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (1998). The nature of children’s stereotypes of popularity. Social Development, 7 , 301–320.

Lambe, L. J., Hudson, C. C., Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2017). Does defending come with a cost? Examining the psychosocial correlates of defending behavior among bystanders of bullying in a Canadian sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 65 , 112–123.

Lambe, L. J., Craig, W. M., & Hollenstein, T. (2019). Blunted physiological stress reactivity among youth with a history of bullying and victimization: Links to depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 47 (12), 1981–1993.

Limber, S. P., Olweus, D., Wang, W., Masiello, M., & Breivik, K. (2018). Evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A large scale study of US students in grades 3–11. Journal of School Psychology, 69 , 56–72.

Little, T. D., Jones, S. M., Henrich, C. C., & Hawley, P. H. (2003). Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27 , 122–133.

Lochman, J. E., Powell, N. P., Whidby, J. M., Fitzgerald, D. P. (2012). Aggression in children PC Kendall Eds Child and adolescent therapy: Cognitive-behavioral procedures . Guilford Press. 27( 60).

Lukes, S. (Ed.). (1986). Power . NYU Press.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P. (2006). Take this job and …: Quitting and other forms of resistance to workplace bullying. Communication Monographs, 73 (4), 406–433.

Maestripieri, D. (2012). Games primates play: An undercover investigation of the evolution and economics of human relationships . Basic Books.

Malamut, S. T., van den Berg, Y. H. M., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2020). Dyadic nominations of bullying: Comparing types of bullies and their victims. Aggressive Behavior, 46 (3), 232–243.

Margoni, F., Baillargeon, R., & Surian, L. (2018). Infants distinguish between leaders and bullies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (38), E8835–E8843.

Marlowe, F. (2010). The Hadza: Hunter-gatherers of Tanzania . University of California Press.

Marshall, L. (2013). The! Harvard University Press.

Massoc, E. (2020). Banks, power, and political institutions: The divergent priorities of European states towards “too-big-to-fail” banks. The cases of competition in retail banking and the banking structural reform. Business and politics , 22 (1), 135–160.

Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23 (1), 26.

Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113 , 99–128.

O’Connell, P. A. U. L., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (1999). Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22 (4), 437–452.

O’Gorman, R., Henrich, J., & van Vugt, M. (2009). Constraining free riding in public goods games: Designated solitary punishers can sustain human cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society b: Biological Sciences, 276 (1655), 323–329.

Olweus D. (1978). Aggression in the schools. Bullies and whipping boys . Hemisphere.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do . Wiley-Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1997). Bully/victim problems in school. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18 (2), 170–190.

Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some critical issues. In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 9–33). Routledge.

Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9 , 520–538.

Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9 , 751–780.

Olweus, D., & Breivik, K. (2014). Plight of victims of school bullying: The opposite of well-being. Handbook of child well-being (pp. 2593–2616). Springer.

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80 (1), 124.

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2018). Some problems with cyberbullying research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19 , 139–143.

Ostrov, J. M., Kamper-DeMarco, K. E., Blakely-McClure, S. J., Perry, K. J., & Mutignani, L. (2019). Prospective associations between aggression/bullying and adjustment in preschool: Is general aggression different from bullying behavior? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28 (9), 2572–2585.

Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric popularity and peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18 , 125–144.

Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). The roles of dominance and bullying in the development of early heterosexual relationships. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2 (2–3), 63–73.

Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., Connolly, J. A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L., & Jiang, D. (2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32 (4), 376–384.

Pettenger, M. E. (Ed.). (2007). The social construction of climate change: Power, knowledge, norms, discourses . Ashgate Publishing.

Pouwels, J. L., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2018a). A developmental perspective on popularity and the group process of bullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 43 , 64–70.

Pouwels, J. L., van Noorden, T. H. J., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2018b). The participant roles of bullying in different grades: Prevalence and social status profiles. Social Development, 27 (4), 732–747.

Pratto, F., & Espinoza, P. (2001). Gender, ethnicity, and power. Journal of Social Issues, 57 , 763–780.

Pronk, J., Lee, N. C., Sandhu, D., Kaur, K., Kaur, S., Olthof, T., & Goossens, F. A. (2017). Associations between Dutch and Indian adolescents’ bullying role behavior and peer-group status: Cross-culturally testing an evolutionary hypothesis. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41 (6), 735–742.

Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., van de Schoot, R., Aleva, L., & van der Meulen, M. (2013). Costs and benefits of bullying in the context of the peer group: A three wave longitudinal analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41 , 1217–1229.

Reijntjes, A., Vermande, M., Olthof, T., Goossens, F. A., Vink, G., Aleva, L., & van der Meulen, M. (2018). Differences between resource control types revisited: A short term longitudinal study. Social Development, 27 (1), 187–200.

Rodkin, P. C., Espelage, D. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2015). A relational framework for understanding bullying: Developmental antecedents and outcomes. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 311–321.

Rodkin, P. C., Farmer, T. W., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R. (2000). Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36 , 14–24.

Roland, E. (2011). The broken curve: Effects of the Norwegian manifesto against bullying. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35 (5), 383–388.

Runions, K. C., Salmivalli, C., Shaw, T., Burns, S., & Cross, D. (2018). Beyond the reactive-proactive dichotomy: Rage, revenge, reward, and recreational aggression predict early high school bully and bully/victim status. Aggressive Behavior, 44 (5), 501–511.

Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15 (2), 112–120.

Smith, J. A., & Judd, J. (2020). COVID-19: Vulnerability and the power of privilege in a pandemic. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 31 (2), 158–160.

Shakoor, S., Jaffee, S. R., Bowes, L., Ouellet‐Morin, I., Andreou, P., Happé, F., & Arseneault, L. (2012). A prospective longitudinal study of children’s theory of mind and adolescent involvement in bullying. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 53 (3), 254–261.

Smith, P. K., Kwak, K., & Toda, Y. (Eds.). (2016). School bullying in different cultures . Cambridge University Press.

Spadafora, N., Marini, Z. A., & Volk, A. A. (2020). Should I defend or should I go? An adaptive, qualitative examination of the personal costs and benefits associated with bullying intervention. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 35 (1), 23–40.

Stellwagen, K. K., & Kerig, P. K. (2013). Ringleader bullying: Association with psychopathic narcissism and theory of mind among child psychiatric inpatients. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 44 (5), 612–620.

Sulkowski, M. L., Bauman, S. A., Dinner, S., Nixon, C., & Davis, S. (2014). An investigation into how students respond to being victimized by peer aggression. Journal of School Violence, 13 (4), 339–358.

Sutton, J., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (1999). Social cognition and bullying: Social inadequacy or skilled manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17 , 435–450.

Vaillancourt, T., Hymel, S., & McDougall, P. (2003). Bullying is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19 (2), 157–176.

van den Berg, Y. H. M., Burk, W. J., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2019). The functions of aggression in gaining, maintaining, and losing popularity during adolescence: A multiple-cohort design. Developmental Psychology, 55 (10), 2159–2168.

van den Berg, Y. H. M., Lansu, T. A. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2020). Preference and popularity as distinct forms of status: A meta-analytic review of 20 years of research. Journal of Adolescence, 84 , 78–95.

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Munniksma, A., & Dijkstra, J. K. (2010). The complex relation between bullying, victimization, acceptance, and rejection: Giving special attention to status, affection, and sex differences. Child Development, 81 , 480–486.

Volk, A. A., Andrews, N. C., & Dane, A. V. (2022a). Balance of power and adolescent aggression. Psychology of Violence, 12 , 31–41.

Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Al-Jabouri, E. (2022b). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? A 10-year review. Educational Psychology Review , 1–28.

Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior, 38 (3), 222–238.

Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A Theoretical Redefinition. Developmental Review, 34 (4), 327–343.

Vredenburgh, D., & Brender, Y. (1998). The hierarchical abuse of power in work organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (12), 1337–1347.

Wilson, J. L. (2016). An exploration of bullying behaviours in nursing: A review of the literature. British Journal of Nursing, 25 (6), 303–306.

Wincentak, K., Connolly, J., & Card, N. (2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7 (2), 224–241.

Wolke, D., Tippett, N., & Dantchev, S. (2015). Bullying in the family: Sibling bullying. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2 (10), 917–929.

Xu, T., Magnusson Hanson, L. L., Lange, T., Starkopf, L., Westerlund, H., Madsen, I. E., & Rod, N. H. (2019). Workplace bullying and workplace violence as risk factors for cardiovascular disease: A multi-cohort study. European Heart Journal , 40 (14), 1124–1134.

Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55 (2), 293–300.

Yeager, D. S., Fong, C. J., Lee, H. Y., & Espelage, D. L. (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37 , 36–51.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Child and Youth Studies, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada

Naomi C. Z. Andrews & Anthony A. Volk

Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Radboud University, Houtlaan 4, Nijmegen, 6525 XZ, The Netherlands

Antonius H. N. Cillessen

Department of Psychology, Queen’s University, Humphrey Hall, 62 Arch Street, Kingston, ON, K7L 3N6, Canada

Wendy Craig

Department of Psychology, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada

Andrew V. Dane

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony A. Volk .

Ethics declarations

None of the authors has any competing interests to declare. This manuscript was not supported by external funding. All of the authors contributed towards the ideas, writing, and editing of this manuscript with authorship determined by alphabetical order.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Andrews, N.C.Z., Cillessen, A.H.N., Craig, W. et al. Bullying and the Abuse of Power. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 5 , 261–270 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-023-00170-0

Download citation

Accepted : 03 April 2023

Published : 19 April 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-023-00170-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Abuse of power
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Abuse of power as a ground of review in judicial review

John Stanton

22 min read
Abuse of power , Administrative law , Judicial review
Law Journal
Abuse of power as a ground of ...

This article is a reproduction of a lecture on administrative law delivered by John Stanton at the University of Malta on the 14th February 2023. In it, he examines the ground of judicial review known as ‘abuse of power’ as developed and applied in English Common Law. John Stanton, ‘Abuse of power as a ground for review in judicial review ‘ (Online Law Journal, 6 May 2023).

Download Full PDF Version

Written by:

Introduction

Judicial review in the UK is common law based. Whilst there is a statutory framework that outlines the procedures involved and the relevant remedies, these are of little help without the plethora of cases that clarify the rules regarding access to review, that is, the procedural requirements necessary to satisfy before a claim can be brought, and the grounds for review, which set out the more substantive bases upon which a claim can be brought.

Today, the grounds for judicial review in UK law fall into four broad categories, which were set out by Lord Diplock in the case of Council for Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service . These grounds are: (1)illegality, which covers issues including – but not limited to – where power has been used for improper purposes; where decisions have been taken ultra vires ; where irrelevant considerations have been taken into account; and where errors of law or fact have perhaps been made. (2)Irrationality is the second ground and this equates with the notion of unreasonableness. The third, (3)proportionality, has developed more recently than the other grounds (but was nonetheless identified by Lord Diplock in the Civil Service Unions case) and it equates with the principle of proportionality that is common in Europe and particularly within the Council of Europe. Finally, (4) procedural impropriety is another broad category that determines whether appropriate procedures have been followed, both in terms of any relevant statutory procedures and in terms of the principles of natural justice.

With these grounds in mind, in this lecture, I want to focus in particular on how these grounds deal with abuses of administrative power and to explore and examine some of the landmark cases in UK law that have shaped and developed this area. To understand the notion of categorising abuses of power, however, we first expand on something that is central to appreciating the role of the courts in judicial review, namely, discretionary power.

2. Discretionary Power and Roberts v Hopwood (1925)

Discretionary power or discretion exists where the party receiving the power has a number of ways and a range of degrees in which the power can be exercised. To put this another way, the power is not prescriptive or precise in what it means for the Government; it is instead imbued with an inherent flexibility as to how it should be exercised or used. This is important because when such powers are framed by Parliament, it is difficult to predict all the various circumstances in which the power might or could be used, and to impose restrictions on the power might hinder or obstruct its effective use. By providing a broad power, therefore, it leaves it up to Government to decide how it is to be exercised. It is here, though, that we encounter the potential for abuse of such power. First, an example of a discretionary power; one that is relevant to our first case. The power outlines how local council employees are to be paid. In this regard, section 62 of the Metropolis Management Act 1855 states that a local council ‘ shall […] employ […] such […] servants as may be necessary and may allow to such […] servants […] such […] wages as [the Council] may think fit .’It is through these last few words that we can identify this power as a discretionary power. Parliament is empowering local councils to act as it deems appropriate in the circumstances.

The potential for abuse, however, stems not from what the power says but from what it doesn’t say. On a strict reading of this provision, for example, a council might lawfully pay its employees £1 million a year. There is nothing in the Act suggesting that this would be unlawful. But think about it: what if a council did pay its employees £1 million a year? Though it might seem ostensibly lawful, we might think that it amounts to a gross misuse of public money, faithfully paid to the council through local taxation; we might think that a decision has been taken for personal profit since the members of the council would benefit from that decision; and more practically, we wouldn’t have a council for much longer because local authorities in the UK do not have anywhere near the money required to pay those sort of wages. They would become insolvent.

In short, we might say that, despite its apparent lawfulness, the council is abusing its power and its position. So, what are we saying? Simply put, whilst this discretionary power might appear limitless, society must put to use a means of ensuring that it is exercised within certain limits of acceptability. This means is provided by the courts through judicial review and in this vein, judges have, through countless cases, carved out the rules that police the boundaries of discretion.

Our first case in this regard involves this power from the Metropolis Management Act, which stated that a local council ‘ shall […] employ […] such […] se rvants as may be necessary and may allow to such […] servants […] such […] wages as [the Council] may think fit .’ In this case, a challenge was brought to a London council’s efforts to pay its employees a wage that was far above the national average and that paid men and women the same wage. The court in Roberts v Hopwood noted that this power permits an extremely broad discretion: there is no qualification and there is no indication as to what might or might not amount to reasonable or appropriate wages. The legal basis for this challenge, though, was that the discretionary power set out by the 1855 Act had been used improperly and abused. Echoing our concern that discretionary power, despite its breadth, must be exercised within certain limits of acceptability, the House of Lords stated in the case that the broad power should be read to mean that the council should pay wages as they ‘ thought fit and proper for the services rendered ’. Lord Atkinson stated in the case that the broad power in section 62:

[…] cannot […] mean that the employer, especially an employer dealing with moneys not entirely his own, may pay to his employee wages of any amount he pleases […] The only rational way by which harmony of administration can be introduced into the various departments of Local Government […] is by holding that in each and every case the payment of all salaries and wages must be ‘reasonable’ .

We have then, one of the first common law rules when it comes to the exercise of discretionary power in order that it not be abused: discretionary power is not limitless but must be exercised reasonably.

3. Unreasonableness and Wednesbury

We encounter at this point, however, an issue that has troubled the UK courts for most of the last century: what does it mean to exercise power reasonably? The closest Lord Atkinson gets to offering any definition is, in the context of the section 62 power, that reasonable means that the employer shall pay a wage they ‘ think fitting and proper ’. This almost sounds like proportionality, which we shall come to later. For now, our next stop on this exploration of the way in which abuse of power is dealt with by the courts is the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation. The facts of this case are as follows. Wednesbury Corporation was granted the power, under section 1(1) of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to ‘ allow places in that area licensed under the […] Ac t to be opened and used on Sundays for the purpose of cinematograph entertainments, subject to such conditions as the authority think fit to impose ’. In other words, the local council was given, under the 1932 Act, a broad discretionary power to impose conditions on Sunday opening hours in the local area. Under this power, the Wednesbury Corporation granted the Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd permission to show films at the cinema on Sundays on the condition that no children under fifteen years of age should be permitted. The Picture House brought an action challenging this decision, arguing that to exclude those under the age of fifteen from Sunday performances was ultra vires and unreasonable. The court found that the Wednesbury Corporation had not acted unreasonably or ultra vires in setting out the policy, and the decision was, therefore, held to be lawful.

In giving judgment in Wednesbury , Lord Greene MR discussed the nature of actions against councils and considered that there were a range of permissible grounds of attack in cases challenging exercises of local authority power. Chief amongst these, however, Lord Greene singled out and discussed the notion of unreasonableness. He defined this in saying:

It is true the discretion must be exercised reasonably […] Lawyers familiar with the phraseology commonly used in relation to exercise of statutory discretions often use the word ‘unreasonable’ in a rather comprehensive sense. It has frequently been used and is frequently used as a general description of the things that must not be done. For instance, a person entrusted with a discretion must, so to speak, direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting ‘unreasonably’. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority.

These last words are commonly held as defining what is meant by Wednesburyunreasonableness and it is perhaps the most prominent, if the most contentious, example of abuse of discretionary power.

Other judges have also sought to interpret these words and offer views as to what it means to be unreasonable. In 1977, for example (in the case of Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council) , Lord Denning stated that ‘[n] o one can properly be labelled as being unreasonable unless he is not only wrong but unreasonably wrong, so wrong that no reasonable person could sensibly take that view ’.And in the aforementioned Civil Service Unions case, Lord Diplock categorised irrationality as equating with unreasonableness, going on to state that the test ‘ applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it ’.

In the application of Wednesbury unreasonableness, however, we encounter a problem. Judicial review is a process that is designed to permit the courts to review the lawfulness of administrative action. The lawfulness . To do more than this; to comment on the merits of administrative decisions and actions would compromise the separation of powers and place the courts in a position where they were perhaps usurping the power of the executive branch. In this vein, we say that the court in judicial review cases is exercising a supervisory jurisdiction, rather than an appellate jurisdiction. The courts are supervising the lawful use of administrative power. The contention is, however, that to ask whether an action or decision is unreasonable arguably involves a line of inquiry that goes beyond simply asking whether such actions or decisions are lawful; arguably it goes beyond this supervisory jurisdiction. To declare something unreasonable, in other words, might in certain situations be said to be passing judgments on its substantive merit. For this reason, the courts have come to interpret the unreasonableness test with incredible stringency. Actions and decisions are found to be unreasonable not when they are merely disagreeable or unpopular, but where they are so wrong as to cross over the boundaries of lawfulness. Echoing this, Lord Ackner stated in the early 1990s that:

This standard of unreasonableness […] has been criticised as being too high. But it has to be expressed in terms that confine the jurisdiction exercised by the judiciary to a supervisory, as opposed to an appellate, jurisdiction. Where Parliament has given to a minister or other person or body a discretion, the court’s jurisdiction is limited, in the absence of a statutory right of appeal, to the supervision of the exercise of that discretionary power, so as to ensure that it has been exercised lawfully. It would be a wrongful usurpation of power by the judiciary to substitute its […] judicial view, on the merits and on that basis to quash the decision. If no reasonable minister properly directing himself would have reached the impugned decision, the minister has exceeded his powers and thus acted unlawfully and the court in the exercise of its supervisory role will quash that decision. Such a decision is correctly, though unattractively, described as a ‘perverse’ decision.

This stringency has, on occasion, given rise to difficult and sensitive decisions, as is shown by R v Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith (1996). In the case, the Ministry of Defence, in 1994, set out a policy which stated that ‘homosexuality was incompatible with service in the armed forces and that personnel known to be homosexual or engaging in homosexual activity would be administratively discharged’. The policy had been debated at length in both Houses of Parliament and had been discussed by select committees on two separate occasions. In these instances, the policy had been approved and deemed to be ‘consistent with advice received from senior members of the services’. Four individuals, all serving members of the armed forces, were discharged from duty on the basis of their homosexuality. They brought actions for judicial review in respect of the decision to discharge, claiming that it was irrational and contrary to Article 8 of the ECHR. Though the application failed, the Court of Appeal explained that, as the policy involved human rights issues, greater justification would be needed before the court would be satisfied that the decision was unreasonable. It was found that because the policy had been so widely approved in Parliament and by Select Committees at various stages and, consequently, found to be consistent with advice received, the policy could not be deemed unreasonable. It is hardly surprising that this decision was appealed to Strasbourg and overturned by the European Court of Human Rights (the domestic decision predates the UK’s incorporation of the ECHR).

In view of this decision, and many others like it, should we be distancing ourselves from a test that many have described as being too strict to be effective? This is not a novel suggestion but is in fact one that many judges have asked over the years, and it has been asked in conjunction with queries as to whether proportionality should perhaps replace unreasonableness as a more measured and appropriate standard against which to assess abuse of power, especially keeping in mind the use of that test in Europe. In 2001, the House of Lords acknowledged that:

I think that the day will come when it will be more widely recognised that […] Wednesbury […] was an unfortunately retrogressive decision in English administrative law, in so far as it suggested that there are degrees of unreasonableness and that only a very extreme degree can bring an administrative decision within the legitimate scope of judicial invalidation.

In that same case, the court explored the possible use of proportionality as a replacement.

Just as there has been reticence to make findings of unreasonableness, however, so has there also been judicial restraint in overturning the legendary Wednesbury decision. In 2002, the Court of Appeal said that ‘ it is not for […] [the Court of Appeal] to perform […][ Wednesbury’s ] burial rites ’, implying that it was perhaps a responsibility of the Supreme Court to fulfil. But, in 2015, the Supreme Court itself said that ‘[i] t would not be appropriate for a five-Justice panel of this court to ’ overturn the decision because it would have ‘ profound ’ constitutional ramifications. This is an unusual declaration by the highest court that nothing short of a full house could correct what is widely regarded as a flawed aspect of English administrative law.

4. Abuse of Power and Illegality

Though the evolution of unreasonableness is the most prominent area through which the courts have developed their policing of abuse of power, it is not the only area. Returning to the Wednesbury case, Lord Greene stated there that there were other categories or grounds of attack that might justify an action for judicial review. He identified, for example:

[b] ad faith, dishonesty, attention given to extraneous circumstances, disregard of public policy […] a person entrusted with a discretion must […] direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his consideration matters which are irrelevant to what he has to consider.

There is some overlap between these categories, but the point is made. When the courts entertain actions alleging abuse of power, unreasonableness is not the only test in their armoury.

I want to spend some time, then, just highlighting a few other cases and areas that the courts have developed in recent decades.

4.1 The decision-maker must exercise their discretion to further, rather than undermine, the purpose of the Act of Parliament granting discretion.

Where legislation grants to an authority or a decision-maker a particular power, that power must of course be used in such a fashion that furthers or complements the objectives of the Act. To neglect this would be to abuse power. We can see this requirement at work in the case of Padfield v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1968). In this case, there was a dispute regarding the prices producers of milk could sell their milk for, the Milk Marketing Board setting the price at a level lower than was desirable. As a result, milk producers complained to the Minister under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958. Section 19 of that Act required a committee to investigate any complaint the Minister ‘ in any case so directs ’. The Minister refused to direct the committee to investigate the complaint. The Minister argued that the Act gave him total discretion over whether to refer a complaint. The House of Lords rejected that argument. Lord Reid held that the purpose of the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 was to provide ‘ machinery for investigating and establishing whether the scheme is operating or the board is acting in a manner contrary to the public interest ’.

The Minister had refused to forward the complaint because of the potential political embarrassment he may face should the committee uphold the complaint and the Minister chose not to give effect to this decision. The court interpreted section 19 to mean that Parliament had not given the Minister an absolute discretion over whether to forward complaints or not and by choosing not to forward the complaint the Minister was frustrating the very purpose of the Act which was to ensure that complaints from milk producers could be considered by the Board.

4.2 If the decision-maker is given a discretionary power, it must be exercised in full use of the discretion. Discretion, in other words, must not be fettered.

Under this head, the courts seek to determine and uphold that, in the course of exercising a discretionary power, all the relevant individual circumstances have been considered by the decision-maker charged by Parliament to make the decision in question. Discretion is given to be exercised, not to be abused. We can see this rule at work in the case of R (on the application of S) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2007). Here, an Afghan national made an application for asylum in 1999. Two years later, in January 2001, the Home Office decided to delay considering claims made before January 2001. This was in order to meet a target agreed with the Treasury to process sixty per cent of new claims within 61 days. Carnwath LJ considered this to be a ‘textbook case’ of unlawful fettering of discretion. The Home Office had adopted a blanket policy which prevented it from considering individual cases on their merits. The effect of the policy was to ‘ defer a whole class of applications without good reasons and without consideration of the effects on the applicants ’.

4.3 If a decision-maker is given a discretionary power, it must not be unlawfully delegated to a subordinate.

Underpinning this requirement is the reality that, in entertaining judicial review cases, the courts are being required to interpret legislation and ensure that it is upheld in the manner that Parliament demands. When Parliament grants a statutory power to a decision-maker, it is presumed that the intention of Parliament is for that decision-maker to exercise the statutory power in question. It would be unlawful and too onerous if that decision-maker were to take it upon themselves to transfer that power, authority, and responsibility to another decision-maker.

The leading case in this area is Barnard v National Dock Labour Board (1953).Under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Order 1947, the National Labour Dock Board was required to delegate to Local Dock Labour Boards various functions, including the power to discipline dock workers, and suspend dock workers without pay. The Local Labour Dock Board for London, however, had further delegated the power to discipline dock workers to the Port Manager. Barnard was one dock worker of several who had been suspended by the Port Manager, and they challenged their suspensions. The Court of Appeal held that the dock workers had been suspended unlawfully. As the Local Labour Dock Board did not have any lawful authority by which they could further delegate the power delegated to them by the National Labour Dock Board, the Local Labour Dock Board should have made the decision itself. As the decision was made by the Port Manager, this was unlawful, and the suspensions were overturned.

All this said, there is a notable exception to this rule, namely, legislation that empowers the Government. Due to the often frequent changes that are made to Government structures, the departments, the individuals involved, etc., legislation that empowers the Government invariably does so in the name of the Secretary of State: ‘The Secretary of State has the power …’. Whatever government department is responsible for the relevant area will always have a Secretary of State. But, of course, given that departments can make many thousands of decisions a day, it is ‘physically impossible for the Minister to exercise personally all the powers vested in the Minister in his or her official capacity’. Parliament is assumed, therefore, to permit officials within government departments to act in the name of ministers without any formal delegation of power. This is bolstered by the convention of ministerial responsibility, which ensures that the Secretary of State is responsible for everything that goes on in their respective departments. The exception was identified in the case of Carltona .

4.4 Powers granted by Parliament must be used for the purpose for which they were granted.

This is central to the use of discretion and is another prominent area in which the courts have developed their dealings with alleged abuse of power. Where legislation grants a discretionary power to a decision-maker, that power must be used for the purpose for which it was granted, not for any other purpose. A leading case here is Wheeler v Leicester City Council (1985),in which the Act in question was not only ignored but used for an altogether different purpose than that intended by Parliament. The facts of this case are that players from Leicester Rugby Football Club had chosen to take part in a tour of South Africa organised by the English Rugby Football Union. This was a controversial decision because the tour was taking place during the period of apartheid in South Africa, and many sports had chosen to boycott South Africa. Though the rugby club had condemned apartheid, they took no action against the players for taking part in the tour as they felt that it was up to the individual players to decide if they wished to attend.

Leicester City Council, however, had taken a strong stance against apartheid and disagreed with the rugby players’ participation in the tour. As a punishment, therefore, and in response, the Council decided to ban the rugby club from using fields owned by the council for training and matches. The Council argued that they were acting on the basis of section 71, Race Relations Act 1976, and the duty of the Council to ‘ promote […] relations, between persons of different racial groups ’. However, the court disagreed. Essentially, the Council had requested the rugby club, a private organisation, to pursue an objective that the Council wanted. When the rugby club refused to do this, in response, the Council banned the rugby club from using its field. The effect of this was that the Council was effectively punishing the club for taking a different view on this matter. The Court considered that this was a misuse of the Council’s powers.

The final case I want to look at is Porter v Magill (2001).In this case, the Conservative Party-controlled Westminster City Council developed a policy to sell some of its council-owned housing. This was perfectly legal under section 32 of the Housing Act 1985. However, this policy was adopted in the belief that homeowners were more likely to vote Conservative in future elections, and that this policy would create more homeowners. The House of Lords found that the defendants had acted under an improper purpose in so far as the powers granted to the council were used to achieve a purely political objective rather than the objective intended when the legislation was passed.

Abuse of Power Essay Unit

Description

This essay unit invites students to consider what abuse of power is, and how it impacts communities. Walks students through topic selection, outline writing, and final draft, culminating in a podcast assignment. Includes rubrics.

Questions & Answers

Dr o's english class.

We're hiring
Help & FAQ
Privacy policy
Student privacy
Terms of service
Tell us what you think

IMAGES

The Dangerous Side of Power: [Essay Example], 661 words GradesFixer
"Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo: Abuse of Power
Abuse of Power Essay Unit by Dr O's English Class
⇉Andrew Jackson Expansion of Power or Abuse of Power Essay Example
abuse of power thesis
Abuse of Power Research Paper Example

VIDEO

Essay topic discussion
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER Essay|10 sentences
Knowledge is Power
ESSAY ON DANGERS OF DRUG ABUSE
Essay on Power is knowledge in English Short essay 5 lines on Knowledge
Learn 'POWER' expressions with Shakespeare stories

COMMENTS

Macbeth 'Power' Essay [Draft]
His play, Macbeth, about the Scottish tyrant King who is affected by witchcraft and the inward desires of his own wife's evil intentions, is a good example of this power that exists in such relationships, even regal ones. In Act 1, Scene 5, after Macbeth has been visited by the three witches on the heath, he writes a letter to his wife back ...
Abuse of Power in The Crucible: [Essay Example], 697 words
In Arthur Miller's play, The Crucible, the theme of abuse of power is central to the narrative. Set in the 17th century during the Salem witch trials, the play explores the consequences of unchecked authority and the devastating impact it can have on individuals and society as a whole. Through the characters and their actions, Miller highlights ...
Power, Authority, Abuse in Politics and Society Essay
Power abuse is the use of official power in personal interests resulted in a violation of legally protected interests of citizens, organizations, or society. Although people understand that the authorities often abuse their power, the first is likely to follow the orders of the latter. We will write a custom essay on your topic.
Consequences Of Abuse Of Power English Literature Essay
Consequences Of Abuse Of Power English Literature Essay. Night starts off by introducing Moishe the Beadle a Jew that lives in Sighet a small town in Transylvania. "Then one day all of a sudden all the Jews were expelled from Sighet and Moishe the Beadle was a foreigner." (pg.6) Moishe the Beadle had to leave Sighet, he along with others ...
Why Power Corrupts
October 2012. Illustration by Chris Rubino. "Power tends to corrupt," said Lord Acton, the 19th-century British historian. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely.". His maxim has been vividly ...
Power and Abuse of Power
Power may be as old as the history of humankind, but there has been great variation in the interpretation of this word. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "the ability to control people or things."The Merriam-Webster Dictionary adds several major definitions: "ability to act or produce an effect;… possession of control, authority, or influence over others."
London
Expertise. English. Each poetry anthology in the GCSE contains 15 poems, and in the poetry question in the exam, you will be given one poem on the paper - printed in full - and asked to compare this given poem to one other from the anthology. As this is a "closed book" exam, you will not have access to the other poems, so you will have to ...
"Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo: Abuse of Power Essay
The essay is an argumentative paper which discusses abuse of power and its demerits. The paper is based on the book Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo. The paper begins with an introduction which states a thesis statement. The body of the essay reveals the term 'abuse of power' and its political and social drawbacks.
7
Summary. One of the future possibilities touched on in Chapter 5 was the development of a constitutionalism premised on the rule of law rather than solely on Parliamentary supremacy. This chapter looks at how, historically, this dualism has been managed, and at judicial control of abuses of power. A note is appended to it on the origin of the ...
An Abuse of Power
An Abuse of Power. GCSE English. The Crucible is a novel that demonstrates the human abuse of power and ability to manipulate weakness in others to achieve our own goals, using its crop of deceptive and cunning antagonists. A well-known actor who held a role in a theatre representation of the Crucible, Javier Bardem was once quoted as saying ...
Understanding the Psychology of Power Abuse
Understanding the psychology behind an abuser's actions can help explain - but not excuse - why the abuse may continue and possibly increase. Individuals who are abusive or have narcissistic tendencies may have a narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD. Research from the Cleveland Clinic shows that 5% of the population has NPD.
The Abuse of Power: Confronting Injustice in Public Life
In The Abuse of Power: Confronting Injustice in Public Life, Theresa May examines several "abuses of power" by politicians and civil servants involved in policy, and advocates for a shift from careerism to public service is needed to achieve better governance.In Chris Featherstone's view, May's selective case studies and weak defence of her role in controversial events like the ...
Abuse of Power & Corruption
The author uses Inspector Goole to highlight these attitudes and to show that many higher-class people don't even think that their abuse of power is immoral or selfish. They feel that they deserve their wealth and power, and that those of lower classes deserve to be less fortunate. Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home.
Bullying and the Abuse of Power
Dan Olweus pioneered research on school bullying and identified the importance of, and risk factors associated with, bullying and victimization. In this paper, we conduct a narrative review of the critical notion of power within bullying. Specifically, we discuss Olweus's definition of bullying and the role of a power imbalance in distinguishing bullying behavior from other forms of ...
Power and Control in Mary Shelley's 'Frankenstein'
The intensity of power within the novel adds to the unnatural storyline which Mary Shelley created. Power within the novel is the most obvious and perhaps the most interesting because power can come from many perspectives.The overall power is in Victor Frankenstein's hands, an example of this is him going against the true nature of god and ...
Abuse Of Power Essay Examples
Stuck on your essay? Browse essays about Abuse Of Power and find inspiration. Learn by example and become a better writer with Kibin's suite of essay help services. > Abuse Of Power Essay Examples. 30 total results. staff pick. graded. words. page « 1; 2 » Company. About Us; Contact/FAQ; Resources ...
PDF Power
This work by PMT Education is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. In The Handmaid's Tale, power is arguably the most important theme. All of the other themes we'll examine in depth (gender, identity, class, rebellion, and religion) are centred around ideas of power. In his TED Talk [1], Eric Liu defines power as "the ability to make others do ...
Model Answers
Below you will find a full-mark, Level 6 model answer for a poetry anthology comparison essay. The commentary below each section of the essay illustrates how and why it would be awarded Level 6. Despite the fact it is an answer to a specific Power and Conflict question, the commentary below is relevant to any poetry anthology question.
Abuse of power: An experimental investigation of the effects of power
So far we have only seen how many subjects decided to abuse, but we have not seen the amount of abuse. As can be seen in Fig. 1 there seems to be no level effect of transparency in the low-power treatment on amount abused (t(46) = 0.9, p = 0.39, d= 0.2 (small)) while there is a level effect of transparency in the high-power treatment (t(46) = 2.7, p = 0.011, d= 0.8 (medium)).
The Abuse of Power
The Abuse of Power: Confronting Injustic in Public Life is a book by former British Prime minister, Theresa May published in 2023. The book explores how power is abused by public institutions and those who run them. [1] It explores the police response to the Hillsborough disaster, Windrush scandal, the Grenfell Tower fire, the Rotherham child ...
Abuse of power as a ground of review in judicial review
This article is a reproduction of a lecture on administrative law delivered by John Stanton at the University of Malta on the 14th February 2023. In it, he examines the ground of judicial review known as 'abuse of power' as developed and applied in English Common Law.John Stanton, 'Abuse of power as a ground for.
Police and Abuse In Power
Police and Abuse In Power. This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples. "There is a difference in knowing you are black and in understanding what it means to be black in America. Before I was ten I knew what it was to step off the sidewalk to ...
Abuse of Power Essay Unit by Dr O's English Class
This essay unit invites students to consider what abuse of power is, and how it impacts communities. Walks students through topic selection, outline writing, and final draft, culminating in a podcast assignment. Includes rubrics.

THE GCSE & GCE ENGLISH PORTAL

Macbeth ‘Power’ Essay [Draft]

Share this:

Abuse of Power in The Crucible

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on The Crucible

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Why Power Corrupts

“Lucifer Effect” by Philip Zimbardo: Abuse of Power Essay

Argumentative essay: Abuse of power

Works Cited

An Abuse of Power

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

The Crucible is a study of power and manipulation." Select any two or three...

The Crucible: Misuse of power.

The Crucible - Power and Manipulation

The Crucible - Show how the different types of power in Salem combine to br...

Our Top Picks

Our In-Depth Reviews

Explore More

Human Resources

Marketing and Sales

Business Basics

Why Does Power Abuse Persist?

What is abuse of power?

Why does abuse of power persist?

Silent supporters and ‘group shun’

How does abuse of power happen in the workplace?

How can you stop abuse of power in the workplace?

Get Weekly 5-Minute Business Advice

Christopher Featherstone

About the author

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Book Review: British Government and Politics: A Comparative Guide by Duncan Watts

Book Review: The Conservative Party After Brexit: Turmoil and Transformation by Tim Bale

Abuse of Power & Corruption

Inspector Goole's arrival

Mr and Mrs Birling

Sheila, Eric and Gerald

Abuse of Power and Corruption

Conflict over corruption

Societal corruption

Inspector Goole

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Bullying and the Abuse of Power

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Theoretical Perspectives and Two Explanatory Models of School Bullying

Examining the Effectiveness of School-Bullying Intervention Programs Globally: a Meta-analysis

Associations between Adolescents’ Interpersonal Relationships, School Well-being, and Academic Achievement during Educational Transitions

Olweus’s Definition of School Bullying

Why Is Power so Important?

The Development of School Bullying and Its Study

Power and Bullying Interventions

Bullying and Power Beyond the School

Conclusions

Author information

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Abuse of power as a ground of review in judicial review

Abuse of Power Essay Unit

Description

Questions & Answers

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS