When we try to change someone's mindset, opinion, or behavior we must consider the power or powerlessness that person feels in themselves and the power expressed in the relationships they hold. Like the Guiding Star and Near Star represent your long-term vision and short-term objective, Relationship Constellations show us where power lies in a system.

​

There are four forms of power: 

• Visible Power: For example, a President has power over its citizens.

• Invisible Power: Traditional and religious leaders exert power over citizens and members of government.

• Hidden Power: Banks or corporations can exert power over a government if it is in debt or seeking approval. Social norms exert power over people, for example in some cultures the norm of taking one’s shoes off on entering a house.

• Systemic Power: Overarching systems and structures that underlie and enforce visible, invisible and hidden power.*

​

​

​

​

​

​

Powerlessness is not always expressed and so it is harder to spot than power. There are four expressions of power:

• Power over: Institutions hold control over individuals. The weather has power over us.

• Power to: The ability of someone or something to do something.

• Power with: Mutual support and collaboration with others.

• Power within: The capacity to imagine and have hope. It is important to acknowledge that many people feel powerless within themselves to effect change, and a responsibility of many campaigners is to find ways to support people to build their own power and agency.

Our relationships with people and the wider world define us and give us power but also identity. The Tanganekald people of South Australia had more than twenty pronouns that were ungendered but that expressed people’s relationship with each other.* There are three types of system relationships which express power:

 

• Commensalist: One benefits, and the other is unaffected. This is the power to do something. For example, the golden jackal follows a tiger to scavenge off its discarded kills; barbed seeds travel on human clothing; gut bacteria living in our digestive system.

• Mutualist: Both benefit. This is power with others. For example, clownfish and anemones help each other. Clownfish consume parasites and provide nutrients to anemones, which in turn shield the fish from predators. Social norms can cultivate politeness among people.

• Parasitic: One benefits, and the other is harmed. This is an expression of power over others. For example, fleas or tapeworms on a host.

 

These types of relationships can exist among both tangible (people, institutions) and intangible (values, norms) parts of a system. These relationships can also enable (strengthen) or inhibit (weaken) others across the system.

 

Normally, to plan a campaign we might single out individual targets by using a Power Map** or Forcefield Analysis to identify key players in a system. 

However, to shift a system more effectively, we recommend using a Constellation Chart to plot the power, relationships and relationship types across the system levels.

 

Sources: 

*For a more detailed explanation of power, see the Just Associates Guide to Power https://justassociates.org/big-ideas/power1/   **https://aboriginallivinglanguages.sa.gov.au/lesson/lesson-twelve-pronouns-part-2/ 

***Power mapping to design a winning campaign strategy: https://commonslibrary.org/power-mapping-to-design-a-winning-campaign-strategy/   ****Forcefield analysis https://www.mindtools.com/a23ewmr/force-field-analysis 

​

​​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

In 1953, prisoners in the Norillag labor camp in Norilsk, Russia, had been enduring extremely harsh conditions. This was a parasitic relationship: the Russian state benefited from their hard labor. They worked 12-hour days in freezing temperatures by mining, making cement, and building roads and railway infrastructure. 

Many were political prisoners hoping for amnesty after Russian leader Joseph Stalin's death. However, the government only offered amnesty to criminal prisoners, leading to frustration and anger.

The prisoners aimed to improve their living and working conditions and gain the attention of higher authorities in Moscow by finding a way to leverage the relationships that set the rules for their imprisonment; the relationship between the public, media and state, and the relationships through which information was communicated:

1. Organizing and Communicating across Camps: Mutualist relationships at the

    “What” level

• Spreading the Word: After a guard killed two political prisoners, inmates in Camp No. 5 used a flag communication system to alert other camps. 

• Starting the Strike: Yevgeny Griciak in Camp No. 4 initiated a strike by shutting down air compressors, halting work.

​

​

​

​

​

​

2. Gaining Support from the public outside - Commensalist relationships at the “Where” level

• Demonstrating Unity: 5,000 prisoners refused to work, endured a three-day siege, and displayed a large sign saying “We Are Being Killed and Starved” to draw attention from the town’s people, who ultimately benefited from the work of the prisoners.

• Expanding the Strike: By 5 June, prisoners in six camps joined the strike, totaling 16,379 strikers. They organized committees, elected leaders, and united nationalities including Ukrainians, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians within the camps.

3. Reaching Power-Holders: Contacting rulemakers in Parasitic relationships via the “Where” and “Who” levels 

• Using gender equality to provoke a reaction: Women prisoners dug graves outside in the ground and protested, knowing that guards would want to shoot them but could not.

• Reaching Out to Authorities: Prisoners demanded to negotiate with representatives from Moscow, inspired by similar tactics in other uprisings.

• Publicizing the Revolt: Prisoners used creative methods, like leaflets tied to kites, to inform the townspeople and authorities in Moscow about their situation. They set the cords of the kites on fire, so when these burnt out over the city, the messages fell down to the ground where they could be read. Griciak said that this action was partly responsible for getting the message out to Moscow.

 

4. Negotiating and Persisting: Shifting relationships from parasitic to mutualist (Moscow and the prison authority; and the prison and the prisoners) at the “Who” level

• Engaging with Moscow Representatives: A special commission from Moscow traveled to Norillag and met with prisoners on 6 June. Prisoners submitted their demands, including shorter workdays, the transfer of disabled prisoners and better communication with families.

• Continuing the Strike: Despite violent suppression and the banishment of some leaders among the rebels, the prison granted some concessions. Then prisoners resumed their strike when promises were not fully met.

​

Despite initial resistance and violent suppression, the prisoners considered it a success due to the significant improvements and recognition they gained.

 

Read more: https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/norillag-prisoners-strike-better-conditions-norilsk-uprising-1953 

​