human's possibilities. (Destructive power as chance for destructive interaction is independent of the instructed person's own will, which can't refuse destructive power.) How significant this distinction really is, becomes evident by looking at the possibilities of rejecting power attempts: rejecting instructive power is possible – rejecting destructive power is not. By using this distinction, proportions of power can be analyzed in a more sophisticated way, helping to sufficiently reflect on matters of responsibility. This perspective permits one to get over an "either-or-position" (either there is power, or there isn't), which is common especially in epistemological discourses about power theories, and to introduce the possibility of an "as well as-position". According to Wolf Ritscher, it is Björn Kraus who "has reflected on the topic of power as a substantial aspect of social existence in a constructivist manner and has shown that constructivism can also be used in terms of social theory". The systems term in relational constructivism It is central to relational constructivism that social conditions cannot be recognized as allegedly objective, but are described from an observer position in social relationships on the basis of determined criteria. In this sense, for example, power is not seen as objectively recognizable, but as a relational phenomenon. Its description depends on the observers point of view. As with Weber, the definition of instructive power and destructive power focuses on the "opportunity within a social relation to put through one's own will, also against reluctance". Here, the category of power is not conceived as a per se existing but rather as a social phenomenon. In this respect, the terms instructive power and destructive power do not describe any observer-independent, existing units that a person has or attributes that are inherent in a person, but rather assertion potential in social relations. The same applies to the relational-constructivist understanding of lifeworlds and living conditions: Although a person's living conditions seem to be much more accessible than a person's lifeworld by observation, both categories are always subject to the ever differing perspective of an observer. Nevertheless, it remains easier to describe life conditions than lifeworlds. While living conditions actually can be observed, statements about lifeworlds always refer to speculated cognitive constructs that cannot be accessed by observation. For Kraus, it is important that systems cannot be defined as independent from an observer. This is the reason he names criteria allowing distinction between a system and its surrounding