Power depends as much on what opponents believe an organisation can do as on what it can actually do.
The first of the thirteen tactical rules in Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals (1971), paraphrased here. Alinsky drew it from organising poor neighbourhoods in Chicago from the late 1930s: a group with few resources could win concessions if its opponents overestimated its numbers and resolve, so the display of strength mattered as much as the strength.
In practice
- A small tenants' association brings every member and several neighbours to one council hearing, and the council treats it as the voice of the whole estate.
- A shop that is losing money keeps its window full and its lights on late, because its creditors are watching.
- Possible explanations
- One explanation is that opponents act on estimates rather than facts, so changing the estimate changes the behaviour. Another is the cost of testing: finding out how strong a group really is means risking a confrontation.
- In its favour
- Consistent with deterrence and reputation research across several fields, and with the long record of bluffing in bargaining. A useful reminder that perception is part of any contest of power.
- Against it
- Bluffs can be called, and an exposed bluff damages credibility for every later contest. Critics argue that it rewards misrepresentation.
- Standing
- Alinsky's rules have been used well beyond the left: in 2009 FreedomWorks circulated an adaptation, Rules for Patriots, through the Tea Party movement. Compare Alinsky's threat rule.
- Subject
- Law & Politics
- Essay
- Rules that restrain power, and advice on using it