In commenting on Prilleltensky's (this issue, pp. 116-136) interesting and provocative article, the authors share with readers their perspectives on empowerment as a concept and as an intervention strategy. Conceptually, they appreciate the seeming paradox that "someone" would acquire control over a less than satisfactory situation by having "someone else" involve themselves in facilitating the former's access to control over that situation. The means by which that transfer, if it actually occurs, becomes permanent "and" irreversible is unclear. By definition, empowerment typically refers to "making or causing to be in a state of power." The implication of the term is that the members of one group (the "Wanters") depend on the actions of the members of a second group (the "Empowerers") to gain access to heretofore lacking power, resources, or influence. This process seems straightforward enough until one recognizes that access to that goal is typically controlled by yet a third group (the "Powered"). Inherent in the issue is the understanding of power. Does it refer to the capacity to acquire an intended outcome through force and confrontation? Does it instead refer to the capacity singly or more likely through disciplined and coordinated action to achieve a personally and socially desirable outcome? The strategies through which one would alter levels of power within an individual or group will differ considerably depending on how power is understood to exist within individuals and to be expressed within and across situations. Therefore, the first step in any empowerment initiative is to define the nature of the power to be shared or altered and to delineate how it will change and be sustained after the intervention. Prilleltensky's concept of psychopolitical validity opens consideration of a significant question for the Empowerers: "Can genuine empowerment occur without some form or degree of disempowerment of the Powered?" The authors believe that successful empowerment is unlikely to occur in a sustained manner without a substantive shift in power from the Powered to the Wanters. In effect, therefore, empowerment implies, indeed requires, disempowerment. The authors end with another question: Do these newly disempowered now become of concern for the Empowerers?