Power has historically taken on different meanings and functions. For Max Weber, power is merely instrumental, while Hannah Arendt sees it as communicative and Michel Foucault as strategic. Although power is traditionally defined as essentially repressive and negative, I will argue, along the lines of Arendt and Foucault, who share similar objections to Weber's model but different views on the normative value of power, that power can be both creative, as it produces knowledge, and positive, as it encourages solidarity. Weber supports the traditional view of power as state, defining it as "the inevitable instrument of all politics", which serves to implement the regime through subjugation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This view holds that power is something that can be possessed, contained in a ruler who imposes rules on subjects; for example, he states that «the professional politician can feel elevated above the everyday level through the sense of exercising an influence on men, of having a share of power over their lives. Weber distinguishes two types of power that complement each other. On the one hand, coercive power, which he defines as the ability to make use of one's power independently of the opposition, especially with the use of force. On the other hand, the legitimate authoritarian power that will guarantee the compliance of its subjects; among these are “traditional governance, based on custom (e.g., religious or royal heritage and lineages); charismatic rule, based on the exceptional character of the leader; and, rational legal rule, which relies on legal status and judicial action to enforce rationally designed rules. «In summary, Weber supports a definition of power that is essentially negative since it serves to limit the freedom of subjects; hence the need for threats and violence. Arendt rejects Weber's power as a model of sovereignty, “because power itself in its true sense can never be possessed by one man alone; power arises... whenever men act "in concert" and disappears... whenever a man is all alone. Arendt therefore defines power not as a fixed physical or mental quality that can be acquired, but as a potential that can be actualized where words are "used to reveal reality", that is, intentions and motivations, and acts "to establish relationships and create new realities. ”Therefore, power is the result of actions, words and deeds, originating from plurality, or collective action, and depends on discussion and debate since it cannot occur through coercion, but “flows from the will of the people. “Power is generated in the public space of appearance which “is realized every time men are together in the way they speak and act”; therefore the coexistence of men is a need. For Arendt, the legitimacy of our political institutions is established by this collectivity. Overall, Arendt defines power as a positive force because it pushes people together and stimulates rational deliberation, leading to cooperation and action that drives political change. Similarly, Foucault criticizes Weber's model of the sovereign-subject relationship, which can be identified with the economic analysis of power, more specifically, what he calls the liberal approach in which “power is considered a right, which it can be possessed as a commodity, and which can be transferred or alienated, in whole or in part, by a legal act or by some act that establishes a right, as occurs by assignment or contract. Weber could also be identified with non-analysis.