Power: A Radical View

Product Information

What are the "dimensions" of power to which Lukes refers? He begins his account with the treatment of power provided by the pluralist tradition of American democratic theory, including especially Robert Dahl in 1957 in "The Concept of Power" ( link). This is the one-dimensional view: power is a behavioral attribute that applies to individuals to the extent that they are able to modify the behavior of other individuals within a decision-making process. The person with the power in a situation is the person who prevails in the decision-making process (18). One of Lukes' academic theories is that of the "three faces of power," presented in his book, Power: A Radical View. This theory claims that power is exercised in three ways: decision-making power, non-decision-making power, and ideological power. [ citation needed] [6] Dimension 3, Configuration: Since there can be many actors in a “situation” or scenario, power can be exerted from multiple sources towards multiple targets, creating networks and “field effects”. You can get power “oscillations” and binary “trigger” effects that work like analog radio signals and/or computer logic circuits. Dimension 1, Quality: I’m inclined to break power down into four categories: coercive, manipulative, cooperative, or altruistic--with each of those categories having various tactical subdivisions. In April 2006, Lukes married the political commentator and author Katha Pollitt, this being his third marriage. Lukes was previously a widower. [5] He has three children from his previous marriage to the English barrister Nina Stanger. [ citation needed] Academic interests [ edit ]

Even if the original author is correct that Lukes intends to lead us to believe that the three "dimensions" each contributes its own influence to an ultimately singular overall force or character of power, he may be right: it is not clear why the original poster thinks that decision-making, agenda-setting, and ideology are somehow intrinsically separate. It seems pretty plausible that they may be simultaneously relevant, even combinatory, in one arena of interactions where power is exercised. These are intended as constructive thoughts, and if they are ever looked upon by another, I hope they are taken as such. Steven Lukes's Power: A Radical View was a very important contribution when it appeared in 1974. Lukes emphasized several important points that became landmarks in subsequent discussions of the social reality of power: that power is a multi-dimensional social factor, that power and democracy are paradoxically related, and that there are very important non-coercive sources of power in modern society. In the second edition in 2005 he left the 1974 essay unchanged, but added a substantive introduction and two new chapters: "Power, Freedom and Reason" and "Three-Dimensional Power". Also new in the second edition is substantially more attention to several other writers on the social context of power, including James Scott and Michel Foucault. The third criticism Lukes has, of the two dimensional view of power, is that when it analyses if power has been exercised or not, it looks only at the subjective interests, policy preferences and grievances that are overridden (Lukes, 1974: 24). The view holds that if the observer can find no grievances there is the assumption that there is ‘genuine consensus’ on the issue at hand (Lukes, 1974: 24). The view, however, does not consider the possibility of a group having preferences that do not necessarily include all of its real interest (Lukes, 1974: 24). For example, in 2009 the number of American workers in trade unions was 12.3% and only 7.2% in the private sector (White, 2010). The ‘peak’ in the private sector was 30% in 1958 (White, 2010). Trade unions can organise and empower workers if they have significant membership and worker support. It is a real interest for workers to be involved in them, but partly due to the historical linking of trade unions with communism and partly due to other factors, few American workers choose to exercise their rights to join trade unions (White, 2010).The three-dimensional theory of power turns to a different problem -- the fact that peoplesometimesact willingly in ways that appear contrary to their most basic interests. So the third dimension is the set of ways in which the powerful transform the powerless in such a way that the latter behave as the former wish -- without coercion or forcible constraint -- for example, by creating a pervasive system of ideology or false consciousness. Both pluralists and their critics overlook an important point, in Lukes's view: I think this gives a fairly rich framework for modeling power. At least, that’s the way 30 years of systems analysis practice leads me to think about it. Seeing this post long after it went up, I'm not sure if it's worth commenting, but - it does strike me that the critique of using the word dimensions is off the mark for at least two reasons:

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs. View our services Including a refreshed introduction, this third edition brings a book that has consolidated its reputation as a classic work and a major reference point within Social and Political Theory to a whole new audience. It can be used on modules across the Social and Political Sciences dealing with the concept of power and its manifestation in the world. It is also essential reading for all undergraduate and postgraduate students interested in the history of Social and Political Thought. From 1974 to 1983, he was President of the Committee for the History of Sociology of the International Sociological Association. He was the co-director of the European Forum on Citizenship at the European University Institute from 1995 to 1996. He is a member of the editorial board of the European Journal of Sociology and directs a research project on what is left of the socialist idea in Western and Eastern Europe.

In hindsight, it seems a little dubious to refer to these as "dimensions" of power, rather than aspects or forms of power. To call them "dimensions" somehow suggests that overall power is a vector of quantities in three or more orthogonal dimensions, each of which can vary independently. The features that Lukes identifies as "dimensions" seem more like tools in a toolkit or strategies in a repertoire: exercise control by doing X or Y or Z. So the language of dimensions seems inappropriate in this context. Three dimensional power works by means of a mechanism called adaptive policy formation (Barber, 2007). This refers to a human reaction of reconciling oneself to one’s misery, or altering one’s attitude to console oneself in difficult circumstances (Barber, 2007). In embracing a particular system, people accept its consequences and thus resort to cognitive dissonance reduction as a functional means of dealing with oppression (Barber, 2007). It is, however, ironic to note that the worse off a people are, the less they demand (Barber, 2007). Rather than acting in favour of their interests, they accept repression and adapt to oppressive conditions. An example of three dimensional power at play is Sen and Nussbaum’s analysis of Bengal, where of the millions affected by the post 1944 famine, it was primarily men who reported to relief centres for aid, despite both sexes being similarly affected (Sen, 2008). In accepting their ‘place’, of having limited rights in society, the women were not prepared to step forward and claim their rights to healthcare (Sen, 2008). Three dimensional power is the most supreme form of power as it gives rulers almost totalitarian power over the masses (Lukes, 1974: 23). Heywood, Andrew. (2013). Faces of power. In The Palgrave Macmillan Politics (4th ed., p. 9). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Heywood used the terms power as agenda setting and power as thought control for the second and third faces of power. Ideological power allows one to influence people's wishes and thoughts, even making them want things opposed to their own self-interest (e.g., causing women to support a patriarchal society). Lukes offers this third dimension as a "thoroughgoing critique" of the behavioural focus of the first two dimensions, [9] supplementing and correcting the shortcomings of previous views, allowing the analyst to include both latent and observable conflicts. Lukes claims that a full critique of power should include both subjective interests and those "real" interests held by those excluded by the political process. [10] Selected works [ edit ] Books [ edit ] I have defined the concept of power by saying that A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B's interests. (37)But this definition is too generic, and Lukes attempts to provide a more satisfactory interpretation by constructing a "three-dimensional" account of power.