It is well known that Rabindranath passionately dreamt of human solidarity which means treating others as one among us, as our equals, or feeling of intimacy, and affinity with others. But at the same time he is also painfully aware of the enemy of this human solidarity. And when we begin to consider how he identifies the enemy, what strikes us is his sensitivity to the complex fabric of interpersonal relationship, particularly to social problems and maladies that emanate from unhealthy social interactions. He draws our attention to asymmetry in communicative relationship where one class has more authority than another. This relationship is a negotiation for power; or it exhibits an inequality in the distribution of power. It reveals distantiation and not mutuality. Obviously this asymmetrical relationship threatens solidarity i.e., treating others as one among us. And this constitutes the worry of Rabindranath.

Now a concrete example of this power differential may be found in interviews. The basic fact about a typical interview is that the interviewer has the sole power qua interviewer. He is in fact in complete control of the entire mechanics of the interview: he starts it, he alone has the right to ask questions, and the privilege of its termination. The interviewee, however, has no such rights and privileges. He has only a submissive role in the whole process. Of course, he may ask questions, but can do so only if allowed by the interviewer. Again, the interviewer may refuse to answer the questions of the interviewee if he likes, but this is something the interviewee is not allowed to do by any means. A detailed account of his socially sanctioned unequal power flow as it manifests itself in an interview is provided by G. Kress and R.Fowler in their joint paper, 'Interviews'. Here is a sample of an interview from their paper, though I have cut it short according to my purpose:
Liz       :  Take a seat Marry.(pause as she reads the card)
Do you mind what area it is, just sort of West End or City or...?
Mary    :  No, just city probably.
Liz       :  Done an IBM 029 and 059 at college?
Mary    :  029 only.
Liz       :  You haven't done the 059?
Mary    :  No, IBM 029 only
Liz       :  Not even at college ?
Mary    :  No.
Liz       :  You never done any temporary work using it, no ?
Mary    :  Temporary work, no.
Liz       :  Here's one, no it's no good, it's for a minimum of two years' experience,...
Mary    :  Yeah,
Liz       :  You can ring in regularly for temporary work and I'll get Mrs. Kelly to send your certificate off to you, OK'?
Mary    :  Yeah, but,..
Liz       :  All right ?
And here are the illuminating comments of Kress and Fowler about this interview. "Liz, the interviewer, begins the interview, as one would expect. To do so, she uses a conventional invitation, but uses it as a command, an imperative; and Mary acquiesces. Moreover, she obeys the command, and then remains silent. Occupying the powerless role of inverviewee. Mary cannot begin the next 'turn' in interview, so she remains silent. Again, Mary's contributions to this conversation have been confined to 'Yes' and 'no' that fit in well with her passive role. She has not once taken the initiative, or sought to extend the content of the interview, however slight. The only exception occurs when Liza has wound up the interview by saying: 'I'll get Mrs. Kelly to send your certificate off to you. O. K.?' 'OK'? is, as far as Liz is concerned, the Yes/no question, seeking the confidently expected assent. Mary, in keeping with her role as powerless interviewee, answers 'yeah'; she follows this with a 'but', however. 'But' is a partial negation, conveying partial agreement and also reservation. If Mary had felt more powerful, she could have answered 'no' and could have stressed that she did not like Mrs. Kelly to send her certificate to her; rather she would tike to have her certificate immediately. As it is, she has to make this tentative suggestion. Liza ignores it, or acts as though it had not occurred."¹

Evidently, interview is a good example of the use of power as an instrument of control. What it exemplifies is a general picture of (he interactions around power differences that go on all the time in our society.

Next..