At the end of the previous chapter, we left an unresolved question: within that seemingly autonomously evolving "ecosystem of ideas," is there a force capable of consciously and massively guiding its direction? The answer to this question leads us directly to the oldest, most central, and most contentious phenomenon in human society—power.
The word "power" always brings to mind kings, generals, CEOs—command, coercion, violence, domination. In traditional thinking, power is seen as a "thing," a resource or tool that a few possess and use to dominate the many. It is viewed as the "crown" atop the social pyramid, a top-down, unidirectional force of oppression.
The mission of this chapter is to fundamentally overturn this simplistic, reified conception of power. We will apply the ontology of the "convergent universe" established in Part One to provide a radically new, more fundamental definition of "power," and on this basis, trace the profound origins of the "power hierarchy" in society—the inequality of power between individuals and groups.
The core thesis of this chapter is:
The essence of power is not the "capacity" to dominate others, but the ability to shape and define "certainty." The power of an actor (individual or organization) is proportional to the extent to which they can transform their own "intentions," through the mechanism of "observation as convergence," into accepted, stable "locked existences"—that is, rules, institutions, consensus, and "facts."
In other words, power is the ability to converge "possibility" into "reality." And the root of social inequality lies in the differentiated distribution of this "convergent capacity" among different actors.
To systematically articulate this thesis, we will first redefine "power," linking it directly to "convergent capacity." Next, we will analyze how minute "advantages" in this capacity accumulate through positive feedback loops into the macroscopic power to set rules and agendas. We will then reveal power's most hidden and potent form—"structural violence," where institutions themselves become tools for depriving the weak of possibility. We will also explore how power anchors collective ideas through symbols and rituals, providing legitimacy for its rule. Finally, through concrete case analyses, we will see how this theoretical framework can be applied to understanding various power structures, from ancient to modern.
This journey will allow us to penetrate the surface of power and reach its operational core at the level of reality construction. We will discover that the most powerful form of power is not that which makes you "have to do" something, but that which makes you "willingly believe" there is no other option.
7.1 Redefining Power: The Capacity to Shape "Certainty"
Let us begin at the most fundamental level. In Part One, we established that the basic dynamic of the universe is "observation as convergence"—a process from a state of "potential" filled with infinite possibilities, through "observation" (interaction and selection), "converging" toward a more "determinate" state of reality.
Now we apply this cosmic-level dynamic to the specific system of human society. In the social domain, "possibility" manifests as:
Possibility of behavior: all possible action options available to an individual or group in a given situation.
Possibility of ideas: all possible explanations, beliefs, and values for a given question.
Possibility of resource allocation: all possible schemes for distributing society's total product.
Possibility of the future: all possible evolutionary paths for a society's future.
And "power" is the capacity to influence or determine "which possibility" ultimately becomes "actualized."
Therefore, we propose a new definition of "power" based on "convergence":
Power is the capacity of an actor (A) to impose its "intentional projection" upon a shared "space of possibility," thereby guiding or forcing that space to "converge" toward a more determinate "state of reality" that aligns with its intentions.
This definition is the cornerstone of this chapter. Let us unpack it carefully:
The subject of power: the "actor"
The subject of power can be an individual, an organization (such as a company, political party), a state, or even a transnational network. Any unit capable of forming a unified "intention" and taking coordinated action can be regarded as an "actor."
The core action of power: "intentional projection"
This echoes the view of "cognition as projection" in Chapter Five. A powerful actor is not merely passively "drawing" a map of reality; it is actively, with "intention," trying to turn the map it draws into the common territory for everyone. It is attempting to transform its "subjective preference" into society's "objective reality."
The field of power: the "shared space of possibility"
Power does not operate in a vacuum. It always unfolds within a "shared space" containing multiple actors. In this space, various conflicting, competing "intentional projections" exist. For example, in a market, buyers, sellers, and regulators are all trying to converge possibilities of price, quality, and rules in directions favorable to themselves.
The result of power: "convergence" toward a more determinate "state of reality"
The ultimate manifestation of power is the production of "certainty." When power is successfully exercised, some possibilities are realized while others are permanently excluded.
When a law is passed, the space of behavioral possibility for citizens is "converged." Certain actions (like theft) go from "possible but not permitted" to "explicitly prohibited and punishable"—a determinate state.
When a company decides to adopt a certain technical standard, the space of technical possibility for the entire industry is "converged." The possibilities of other technical paths are greatly diminished.
When a media outlet chooses to report a certain news story, the space of public attention is "converged." The possibility of unreported events entering public consciousness is reduced.
The Three Levels of Power
Based on this definition, we can divide power into three levels of increasing depth, echoing the famous political scientist Steven Lukes' "three faces of power" theory while endowing them with a deeper ontological foundation.
First Level: Decision-Making Power
This is the most surface-level, most easily observable form of power. It refers to the capacity of A to make B do something B would not otherwise do, among the options already on the table. It is a direct, visible capacity for "behavioral convergence." For example, a boss orders an employee to work overtime; a state forces citizens to hand over a portion of their income through taxation.
Second Level: Agenda-Setting Power
This is a more subtle, more powerful form of power. It refers to A's capacity to determine "which options can be placed on the table" and "which options are not even eligible for discussion." It is a "meta-power" that shapes the "space of possibility" itself. For example, a political party that controls the parliament can not only win votes (first level power), but also decide which bills can be voted on and which are killed at the committee stage. A media group, through selective reporting, determines the "agenda" of public discussion; issues that are ignored effectively "do not exist" in the public space of possibility.
Third Level: Ideological Hegemony
This is the deepest, most fundamental form of power, what the Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci called "cultural hegemony." It refers to A's capacity to shape B's thoughts, beliefs, and desires, such that B willingly accepts the "reality" set by A—a reality that actually only serves A's interests—and considers it "natural," "inevitable," and "unchangeable."
This is the capacity to "converge your cognitive framework." It makes the ruled actively participate in their own rule. For example, when a society successfully internalizes the idea that "personal wealth equals personal worth" as "common sense" for the vast majority, the position of the ultra-wealthy elite is maintained not merely by force, but is legitimized by a powerful, bottom-up "consensus." People no longer question the possibilities of wealth distribution, but instead invest their energy in how to win within this given game.
The Origin of Power Hierarchy
Now we can return to the core question of this chapter: Why does this "convergent capacity" exhibit such vast differences in society? Why are there always a few with convergent capacities far exceeding the many in shaping "certainty"?
The answer is: convergent capacity follows a "Matthew effect"—a logic of accumulation through positive feedback. Initial, tiny advantages are amplified and solidified through a series of mechanisms, eventually forming a seemingly unshakeable, structural power hierarchy.
7.2 The Accumulation of Advantage: Rule-Making Power and Agenda-Setting Power
Imagine a group in a relatively equal initial state. Due to minute differences in talent, luck, or effort, certain individuals or small groups (which we call "advantageous actors") gain a slightly larger "available margin" than others in some respects.
"Available margin" is a key concept we introduce here. It refers to the resources an actor has at their disposal beyond what is needed to satisfy basic survival and maintenance needs. Such resources can be:
Material margin: surplus food, tools, wealth.
Time margin: leisure time that can be used for thinking, learning, socializing.
Cognitive margin: mental bandwidth for processing complex information and long-term planning.
Social margin: broader, more trustworthy social networks.
This initial "available margin" advantage, however slight, is like a snowball rolling down a mountain—it initiates a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop. Advantageous actors use their "available margin" to seize two of the most critical "meta-powers": rule-making power and agenda-setting power.
Seizing Rule-Making Power
In any society requiring cooperation, "rules" are needed to coordinate behavior and resolve disputes. In the early stages of group formation, these rules may be formed through collective negotiation or long-evolved customs.
However, those advantageous actors with more "available margin" have both the capacity and the motivation to actively influence and even dominate this rule-making process.
They have the time to attend tribal council meetings, while others must work all day.
They have the wealth to "buy" or "persuade" key individuals to support rules favorable to themselves.
They have the cognitive ability to design more complex rule systems that appear fair on the surface but contain hidden clauses benefiting themselves (such as complex legal or financial instruments).
Once they succeed in establishing a rule biased toward their own interests as the group's "official rule," the "Matthew effect" of power accelerates.
For example: In an agricultural community, a few families who first occupied the most fertile land near a water source through cultivation or force (initial advantage) might push to establish a rule of "private land ownership, inheritable." Once this rule is established as "law," their initial advantage is "locked in" and "legitimized."
Consequence: Other, later or weaker members can only cultivate barren land or become tenants of these "landlords." The landlords can use the rule (land rent) to legally and continuously extract a portion of "surplus value" from the tenants' labor, further increasing their own "available margin." The tenants, meanwhile, are locked into a state barely sufficient for survival, with almost no "available margin."
Rules are the alchemy that transforms temporary "advantage" into lasting "power." They converge a dynamic game full of possibilities into a static, repeatable "certainty structure" that benefits the vested interests.
Seizing Agenda-Setting Power
Equally important as making explicit rules is controlling the "agenda"—what issues are important and what solutions are possible. Advantageous actors use their "available margin" to invest in and control society's "meaning production" and "information dissemination" channels.
In ancient societies, this might manifest as: controlling the training and appointment of clergy, thus monopolizing the interpretation of "divine will"; patronizing bards and court historians to sing "heroic epics" favorable to one's own family.
In modern societies, this manifests as: owning or influencing mainstream media (newspapers, TV stations, websites); funding universities and think tanks to produce "academic research" and "policy reports" supporting one's own interests; investing enormous sums in political lobbying and public relations campaigns.
By controlling the "agenda," advantageous actors can achieve several key strategic goals:
Highlighting and hiding issues: They can continuously amplify issues favorable to them (e.g., "tax cuts stimulate economic growth") while systematically marginalizing or ignoring issues unfavorable to them (e.g., "wealth inequality harms social stability"). Public attention—the most precious public resource—is directed into a carefully scripted "play."
Framing solutions: For a problem that has become a public issue, they can frame the range of possible solutions. For example, on the issue of "environmental pollution," they might frame the agenda around "individual consumer choices" and "market-based carbon trading," while excluding more fundamental solutions like "limiting corporate power" or "changing the growth model" from the scope of "serious discussion."
Defining "problems": The most fundamental agenda-setting power is the ability to define "what counts as a problem." For example, defining "poverty" as "the result of individual laziness and lack of ability" rather than "the result of social structural injustice" fundamentally excludes the possibility of structural reform.
When a group successfully masters both rule-making power and agenda-setting power, their power is no longer based solely on personal advantage—it has become "structural." It is embedded in laws, institutions, and "common sense," becoming more stable, more hidden, and harder to challenge.
And the most terrifying embodiment of this structural power is "structural violence."
7.3 Structural Violence: When Institutions Themselves Become Tools for Depriving "Available Margin"
The word "violence" usually calls to mind direct, physical harm—beatings, war, massacre. This is "direct violence," with clear actors and victims.
However, Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung proposed a more profound concept—"structural violence." It refers to social structures or institutions that, through indirect, impersonal, seemingly "normal" means, systematically deprive certain groups of their basic needs and developmental possibilities, causing them harm and even death.
Within our theoretical framework, "structural violence" can be more precisely defined as:
When a society's institutional arrangements (laws, economic systems, social norms) are designed and operate in such a way that they systematically and continuously deprive and transfer the "available margin" of one group to another, the institution itself is a form of violence.
Characteristics of structural violence:
No clear "perpetrator": The harm is not caused directly by some "bad person," but by the daily operation of a "system." The bank teller who refuses a loan to the poor, the government official who allocates less budget to schools in poor neighborhoods—they may both just be "following procedures."
Harm is indirect and slow: It is not as immediately lethal as a bullet, but like a chronic disease, it slowly erodes a person's life potential through malnutrition, lack of medical care, unequal educational opportunities, overwork, mental stress—shortening their lifespan and reducing their quality of life.
Normalized and legitimized: Because it operates through "institutions," it is often seen as a "normal social phenomenon" or even a "necessary cost." Victims often blame their own "misfortune" or "incompetence" rather than systemic oppression.
Structural violence is the ultimate "locked" form of power hierarchy. It turns the benefits gained by dominant groups through rule-making and agenda-setting into an automatic, self-reproducing "machine of deprivation."
Let us look at several examples:
An unequal education system: If a country's public education funding relies primarily on local property taxes, schools in wealthy communities will have vastly more resources than schools in poor communities. This means children from wealthy families have better teachers, facilities, and educational opportunities from the start. This "institutional design" itself systematically deprives poor children of the possibility of upward mobility, locking them into the bottom of society. It is not the fault of any single "bad teacher" or "bad principal"—it is "structure" that is killing.
A tax system favoring capital: If the tax code sets the rate on "capital gains" (such as stock and real estate appreciation) far lower than the rate on "labor income" (wages), then this institution systematically makes "money making money" easier than "people making money." It automatically transfers social wealth from the mass of laborers to a small number of rentiers who own capital.
Social norms of gender or racial discrimination: When a society has deep-rooted prejudices that a certain gender or race is "unsuitable" for certain types of work (e.g., "women are unfit for leadership," "black people are not good at science"), this "cultural software" systematically sets up "glass ceilings" for them at every stage of hiring, promotion, and education, depriving them of development opportunities.
Structural violence is the material manifestation of third-level power—ideological hegemony. It solidifies an unequal pattern of "possibility convergence" into a seemingly "natural" and "inevitable" social reality. People living within this structure have their life possibilities pre-set from birth by this invisible institutional cage.
So how does this powerful, institution-embedded power gain its "legitimacy," making people willingly accept it? This requires the other pillar of power: the force of symbols and rituals.
7.4 Symbols and Rituals: How Power Anchors Collective Ideas
A power that relies solely on violence and institutional coercion is fragile, unstable, and extremely costly to maintain. To achieve long-term stability, power must complete a crucial piece of "alchemy": transforming "coercion" into "authority," and "rule" into "leadership."
The key to this transformation lies in the control of society's "symbolic system" and "collective rituals." Power must provide a persuasive, soul-stirring "meaning narrative" for the unequal order of "certainty" it has established. It must make people believe that this order is not only "real," but also "just," "sacred," and "beneficial."
Symbols: The "Visual Embodiment" of Power
Symbols are "visual shortcuts" that condense complex ideas and emotions. Power creates and monopolizes a unique symbolic system to constantly remind people, on both visual and psychological levels, of its existence and legitimacy.
Royal symbols: crowns, scepters, dragon robes, palaces, pyramids. Through the rarity of their materials (gold, jewels), the grandeur of their design, and their association with mythology, these symbols silently proclaim the monarch's transcendent status, setting them apart from ordinary people.
National symbols: national flags, emblems, anthems. These symbols aim to unite tens of millions of strangers—an "imagined community" (Benedict Anderson's term)—into a "nation-state" with a unified identity and emotional belonging.
Corporate symbols: company logos, brand slogans, the founder's image. These symbols attempt to package a profit-seeking commercial organization as a cultural totem with a "mission," "vision," and "values," winning "brand loyalty" from consumers and employees.
These symbols are like "anchors of ideas" cast into the ocean of collective consciousness. Every time we see them, our ideas about "who rules," "which community I belong to," and "what this order means" are unconsciously, repeatedly activated and reinforced.
Rituals: The "Embodied Experience" of Power
If symbols are static reminders, then rituals are dynamic "social dramas" in which people personally "perform" and "experience" power relations.
In rituals, abstract power hierarchy is transformed into concrete, visible, sensible bodily postures, spatial arrangements, and sequences of action.
Coronation ceremony: In the coronation, the king sits high above while subjects must kneel or bow. This difference in bodily posture visually "performs" the hierarchy of power. Every step of the entire ceremony reenacts and confirms the narrative of "divine right of kings."
Court trial: The layout of the courtroom itself is a theater of power. The judge's seat is the highest, wearing a robe representing the majesty and neutrality of the law. The prosecution and defense are on opposite sides, with the general public in the gallery. The entire trial is filled with strict procedures and specialized language, emphasizing the supremacy of law as institutionalized consensus.
Company annual meeting: At the annual meeting, the CEO gives an inspiring speech, outstanding employees receive awards on stage, and all employees sing the company song together. This ritual aims to transform a hierarchical organization based on employment relations into an emotionally connected "big family," strengthening employees' sense of belonging and dedication.
By participating in rituals, people are not merely "told" what the power structure looks like; they are using their own bodies to personally practice and confirm this structure. This "embodied cognition" is far more persuasive than any verbal preaching. It writes the logic of power directly into our "muscle memory" and "emotional circuitry."
The Conspiracy of Symbols and Rituals
Symbols and rituals together construct a powerful "theater of legitimacy." They package a power order—one resulting from "differentiated convergent capacity," full of contingency and conflicts of interest—into an eternal, sacred, deeply meaningful cosmic picture.
They successfully shift our attention from the dangerous question of origin—"how was this order formed, and whose interests does it serve?"—to the safe question of performance—"how can I play my role well in this order to gain recognition and reward?"
This is the ultimate realization of third-level power—ideological hegemony. Power, by anchoring collective ideas, ultimately achieves its highest goal: making power relations themselves "invisible" and "unthinkable."
7.5 Case Studies: From Feudal Fiefs to Multinational Corporations
To make the above theoretical framework more concrete, let us use it to analyze two typical power structures spanning time and space: the medieval European feudal fief and the contemporary multinational corporation.
Case One: The Medieval Feudal Fief
Basis of power (differential convergent capacity): In the chaotic period following the collapse of the Roman Empire, a minority of military nobles with stronger weapons and the ability to build castles (initial advantage) gained the capacity to protect themselves and the surrounding peasants. They possessed the ability to shape "certainty" (security) at the most basic level of violence.
Rule-making power: The lord established the laws of the fief. The core rule was the "feudal contract": peasants (serfs) farmed the lord's land and surrendered most of the harvest (deprivation of available margin) in exchange for the lord's military protection. This rule transformed the lord's military advantage into lasting economic and political power.
Agenda-setting power: The Church, as the most important "meaning producer" of the time, formed a close symbiotic relationship with secular lords. The Church, by preaching "divine right of kings" and the "three estates theory" (those who pray, those who fight, those who work), provided theological legitimacy for the feudal order. It framed a system of exploitation based on violence as a harmonious, unchangeable "sacred order" arranged by God. Any idea questioning this order was defined as "heresy," excluded from the "agenda."
Structural violence: Serfdom itself was a typical form of structural violence. A serf was born bound to the land, with the vast majority of their labor products systematically appropriated, and almost no possibility of changing their fate. Their poverty and lowliness were not due to laziness, but because the entire feudal structure was designed to maintain this deprivation.
Symbols and rituals: the lord's coat of arms, the castle's banner, the knighting ceremony, the Church's mass—all of these constantly reinforced the power narrative of divine and royal unity, making everyone living within it internalize their proper place in that hierarchical cosmic order.
Case Two: The Contemporary Multinational Corporation
Basis of power (differential convergent capacity): The company's founders and major shareholders, through their ownership of "capital"—the most critical factor of production in modern society (initial advantage)—gain the capacity to organize large-scale production, create jobs, and influence markets. They possess the ability to shape "certainty" (goods, services, jobs) at the economic level.
Rule-making power: The company's management establishes internal "rules"—employment contracts, performance evaluation standards, promotion systems. These rules, ostensibly based on "efficiency" and "fairness," have as their core ensuring that "capital" extracts maximum surplus value from "labor." The employee's "available margin" (time and energy) is institutionally converged toward the single goal of generating profit for the company.
Agenda-setting power: Multinational corporations, through powerful lobbying, advertising, and public relations capabilities, profoundly influence the social agenda. They shape concepts such as "economic growth," "consumer choice," and "technological innovation" into core social values. They frame criticism of their own business models (such as environmental damage, labor exploitation) as "necessary costs of development" or "anti-business extremism." By creating a "consumerist" culture, they make people believe that "buying happiness through products" is natural.
Structural violence: In a globalized system lacking effective regulation, multinational corporations can outsource production to countries with weak labor laws and low environmental standards, systematically exploiting cheap labor and environmental resources there. This leads to deindustrialization in developed countries and "sweatshops" in developing countries—a form of structural violence operating through market mechanisms on a global scale.
Symbols and rituals: powerful brand logos, charismatic CEO "idols," exciting product launches, corporate cultures emphasizing "family" and "mission"—all of these attempt to transform a profit-driven hierarchical organization into a "community of meaning" worthy of dedication and identification by employees and consumers.
Through the comparison of these two cases, we see that although the external forms of power (from sword-bearing nobles to suit-wearing CEOs) have changed dramatically, the internal operational logic based on "differentiated convergent capacity" shows a striking consistency.
7.6 Chapter Summary: Power Is Defining Reality
In this chapter, we have fundamentally reconstructed "power"—the core dynamic of society. We have moved beyond the traditional view of power as a "thing" or "coercive force," and instead, from the ontological height of the "convergent universe," provided an entirely new definition.
We discovered that the essence of power is the capacity to shape and define "certainty." It is the ability to converge one's own intention into a "reality" accepted by the community, within a shared space of possibility. And the origin of social inequality lies in the differentiated distribution of this "convergent capacity."
We traced the accumulation process of this differentiation. We saw how tiny "available margin" advantages are amplified and solidified into structural power hierarchies through seizing rule-making power and agenda-setting power.
We revealed power's most hidden and cruel form—structural violence. We saw that when unequal institutions become tools that systematically deprive one group of their "available margin," violence becomes anonymous, everyday, and "normalized."
Finally, we analyzed how power anchors collective ideas through control of symbols and rituals, packaging a ruling order full of conflicts of interest into a "theater of legitimacy" endowed with sacred meaning and emotional appeal.
Now, let us return to the title of this chapter and provide a final, distilled conclusion:
Power is defining reality.
This sentence contains three layers of profound meaning:
The highest form of power is not controlling your behavior, but controlling your "perception of reality." By shaping your language, your common sense, your desires, it constructs for you a world where there is "no alternative." In this world, you may not even conceive of resistance, because you cannot imagine a "different" reality.
The ultimate battleground of social struggle is the struggle over "the right to define reality." The core of all great revolutions, reforms, and social movements in history is not simply the redistribution of interests, but a profound "cognitive war." Their first task is to break the "self-evident" reality defined by the old order (such as "divine right of kings," "slavery is natural"), to propose a new, more compelling "version of reality" (such as "sovereignty resides in the people," "all people are created equal"), and to fight for it until it becomes the new "consensus."
A true critique of power must go to the level of "reality construction." It is not enough to oppose specific "bad people" or "bad policies." We must learn to ask: who defines the rules, agendas, and narratives behind the "reality" we inhabit? How is it defined? Whose interests does it serve? What other "possibilities" does it exclude?
Having understood that "power is defining reality," we have found a central pivot for our exploration of Part Two. We have seen how knowledge is "dimensionally reduced," how consensus evolves in the "ecology of ideas," and how power defines reality through "differential convergence."
But the "reality" defined by power is not monolithic. It is full of tension, contradiction, and uncertainty. What happens when the gap grows between what a society proclaims as "official reality" (its core narrative) and what most people experience as "embodied reality" on a daily basis?
And what happens when the "evaluation systems" used to maintain order (such as exams, credit scores, performance reviews) begin to erode and undermine the very values they are meant to serve?
This will be the subject of our next chapter—"The Evaluation Alienation." We will see how a uniquely modern form of power, based on data and algorithms, in its pursuit of "efficiency" and "certainty," pushes us toward a dangerous state of "meaning vacuum."