Coaches have different relationships of power with the participants they are coaching, how they develop this power is developed. This post looks at the different power relationships and the theories behind these ideas.
- Foucault – Power and Knowledge
- Bourdieu – Capital and Symbolic Violence
- Goffman – Impression Management
Foucault
Michel Foucault’s theory suggests that power and knowledge have a direct link to one another and a lack of knowledge will affect the power over the coaching group. You as the coach should have direct power over your participant because of the more experience and knowledge you have. Those without knowledge and power are known as docile bodies, Foucault argues that individuals are under constant surveillance and regulation in ways that are often subtle and thereby seemingly invisible, leading to normalization and acceptance of such systems.
Bourdieu
Pierre Bourdieu suggests that power comes down to social class and the more capital somebody has directly links to the power that they hold, capital is split into different sections cultural, social and symbolic. This can apply to my coaching placement in that the pupils with more social capital (popular children) can have more power over those who are judged as less popular, this can be explained as unseen symbolic violence with individuals placing themselves higher on the social hierarchy.
Goffman
Goffman believed that in a very autocratic style meaning that the only way to get a message across is through instruction because information is power. Also suggesting that a coach using questions shows weakness and a lack of knowledge around the chosen subject. Through my experience as a coach I believe that this theory could not be more wrong, making the participants learn from one another and through the use of questions I believe is a more successful way to get your coaching point across almost like a ‘find your own answer’ style to coaching.