The parable of the Grocer and the Chief clearly relates to the relativity and perception of power. Lerner considers the reasons that the chief makes the interviewer nervous while the interviewer makes the grocer ‘observably’ nervous. This question demonstrates that power is not absolute or a finite and transactional source of control – rather, it is the perception of relative position within a given physical and hierarchical context that constitutes real power. The chief pragmatically stands in the way of the interviewer’s goals from a legitimate position, and thus the interviewer is influenced by the opposing relative power. On the other hand, the grocer may be intimidated by the interviewer’s education, occupation, and his sense of authority. He therefore perceives to be beneath him, even though there is little to suggest that the interviewer can actually exert any sort of power – coercive, institutional, legal, etc. – over him. Ultimately, the dynamics of power are legitimized by the (constructed) belief in them by participating actors.

I also think this piece raises some interesting questions and parallels to past discussions: The idea of modernity, and what it means to be modern in a social context, the difference between a thick and thin description in social science – and the validity thereof.