Navigating power: A partial pragmatic map

By Katie Moon.

In research, how can we start to appreciate unexamined assumptions about what power is, where it resides, how it works, and who holds it, especially how these assumptions influence not only the problems we recognize, but the solutions we pursue? And importantly, who decides? How can we get a better idea of how power informs how we act: what interventions we attempt, whose knowledge we value, whose interests we centre, and what consequences we anticipate?

In this i2Insights contribution I provide an intentionally simplified orienting map that disaggregates power into six dimensions that mirror the ways researchers tend to separate and locate power into distinct domains to rationalise and evaluate interventions. I match these dimensions to three onto-epistemological frames—objective, constructionist, and relational—which were described in a previous i2Insights contribution A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers. This work is built on my experience in conservation, but is likely to be more widely applicable.

An objectivist frame: Material and structural power

An objectivist orientation conceptualizes power as an external force that exists independently of perception and can be observed, measured, and directly modified. Within this frame, power is assumed to operate through identifiable material conditions and structures that shape social and environmental outcomes.

Material power

Material power manifests through land and resource “ownership,” financial capital, and infrastructure, and also through the technological systems, supply chains, and ecological processes that govern how nature and society interact.

Because it is highly visible and typically measurable, material power is often treated as the most tangible and actionable force, something that can be governed and redistributed.

Structural power

Structural power operates through the formal and informal systems that organize collective life, what I refer to here as institutional architecture and social orders.

Institutional architecture includes laws, policies, funding flows, and organizational structures that determine how decisions are made, by whom, and to what end.

Social orders refer to the deeply embedded hierarchies and logics, such as colonial land-use norms, bureaucratic accountability structures, and standards of scientific authority, that define what kinds of expertise, knowledge, and ways of relating are considered legitimate.

These structures are upheld not only by governance systems and professional institutions but also through everyday compliance (eg., abiding by rules to avoid penalties).

A constructionist frame: Discursive and symbolic power

A constructionist frame conceptualizes power as fundamentally shaped by human consciousness, language and shared meaning-making. Here, power emerges through interpretive systems: how people define what is considered normal or true, and give meaning to social and environmental relationships. Constructionist approaches reveal two distinctive but interrelated dimensions of power: discursive and symbolic power.

Discursive power

Discursive power refers to the influence exerted through dominant ways of talking, thinking, and making sense of the world. It shapes what counts as a problem, whose knowledge is seen as credible, and which solutions are considered legitimate or possible.

Discourse, in this context, includes not just words and language, but the concepts, categories, and assumptions embedded in policy, science, media, and education. These discourses generally draw on epistemologies rooted in Global North, often colonial, worldviews that privilege control, measurement, and market-based logic. Through such systems, alternative knowledge traditions, particularly Indigenous and Global South perspectives, are frequently marginalized, silenced, or selectively appropriated.

Symbolic power

Symbolic power operates through socially recognized signs and markers of legitimacy, such as titles, institutions, visual representations, and rituals, which shape what is perceived as authoritative and valuable. Symbolic power works through status, prestige, and culturally ingrained ideas of competence, credibility, and leadership (eg., scientific objectivity, formal education, institutional affiliation).

Symbols are not just representations; they actively structure reality by making particular ways of knowing and acting seem inherently credible, moral or self-evident. These symbols create a hierarchy of legitimacy, where certain actors (for example scientists and policymakers) are seen as natural leaders, while Indigenous and local knowledge is often invited in selectively, framed as complementary rather than foundational.

A relational frame: Networked and relational “power”

A relational frame disrupts Western notions of power as something possessed or perceived, revealing instead how power emerges through the quality, pattern, and meaning of relationships among people, institutions, and ecosystems. Relational power is co-created through the quality of relationships, the ethics of reciprocity, and the mutual obligations that connect people, communities, and ecosystems.

Within this frame, power can be considered in terms of two interrelated dimensions: networked power, which arises from social position and connectivity, and relational power, which emerges through the qualities and dynamics of interpersonal or intergroup relations.

Networked power

Networked power emerges through webs of relationships, where influence is not held by individuals alone but produced through connections that facilitate access, coordination, and control over resources, knowledge, and legitimacy.

Power here operates through who is connected, who brokers relationships, and whose participation is seen as essential or optional. These dynamics structure who can mobilize support, gain visibility, or influence governance, even in ostensibly horizontal or collaborative spaces.

Relational “power”

Relational “power” is not power in the conventional sense, because it does not exist outside of the relationship itself and cannot be accumulated, controlled, or transferred. The force of relational “power” lies in how it binds, transforms, and sustains. It does not act upon a system from the outside but emerges from within relationships, shaping possibilities for action, meaning, and influence. It is the web of interdependencies through which responsibilities take form, knowledge is co-created, and influence circulates, enacted through reciprocity, obligation, and the shared work of maintaining “right relations.” 

Summary orienting map

The figure below summarises the map and the most visible aspects of power, as discussed. It also highlights the aspects of power that can be invisible and where agency lies. Overall, the orienting map offers a structured way to begin to examine which forms of power might be engaged, overlooked or reproduced in any given intervention.

Closing questions

Does this simplified orienting map help you think about power in useful ways? If you work outside the conservation area, does it resonate? Are there critical issues that should be included?

To find out more:

Moon, K. (2025). Naming it is not enough: An orienting map for understanding conservation’s entanglement with power. Conservation Letters, 18, Article e13146. (Online – open access) (DOI): https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.13146
Much of this i2Inisghts contribution is taken verbatim from this article, which also provides extensive references for all aspects of this i2Insights contribution as well as a matrix of the frames and dimensions of power to guide a critical reflection on one’s view and situatedness, developing literacy to enable deeper engagement with theories of power.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biography: Katie Moon PhD is a senior lecturer in the Public Service Research Group, School of Business at the University of New South Wales, Canberra, Australia. She is also affiliated with that university’s Centre for Ecosystem Science. Her research focuses on the interactions between people and/as nature, examining how people make decisions and why. She applies different and novel combinations of methods to increase understanding of socio-ecological systems, seeking different types of knowledge, experiences, perceptions and interpretations.