Issues of Faces of Power - Essay Example

College: Faces of Power The nature of power is a social structure where the power itself is the ability to acquire what aperson wants; basically, different forms of power have dissimilar objects and pathologies. Moreover, power can be broken down into different forms i.e. the destructive power – a structure involving threats and this is clearly depicted by how the defensive forces of any country act, Productive power – structure that entails making and creating e.g. exchange and trade, and the integrative power that involves creating of new relationships that encourage togetherness (Dahl, 1961, 7). Significantly, any face or form of power has its advantages and disadvantages and it is up to the people in power to identify them and weigh on both sides to ensure that negativity does not have a greater impact more than the positive side. The social structures connection with power is seen when for instance; in an organisation the power is distributed among the different employees or in a state where power is divided from the head of state down to the governors or senators (Ball,1992, 5). In such situations, communication and the decision making processes are the core factors required since everything is done through a hierarchical structure. Many political scientists have come up or rather tried to elaborate the different faces of power on the verge of making people comprehend the power structure more and thus due to the different notions and theories sometimes there is a lot of confusion. However, the most common structures of power include; institution of property, nation-state, knowledge structure, financial structure, production structure (Productive power) and the security structure (Susan, 2004, 64). With these many structures, some of which are not related or similar in any way, it is quite hard for most people to lean upon two or three forms/faces of power alone. However, out of all the faces of power established, Lukes’ seem to have had a great impact and they still are today; reflectively, between January 1975 and June 2006, more than 1200 journal articles cited his article, an impressive figure by any standard and surprisingly after this Lukes was asked to do a second edition. It has been over thirty years since the publications and scholars agree that he wrote the articles on other bases and not to make money; concurrently, analysis of both editions provides readers with both recent literature and original insights on power. Basically, in the second edition (2005), the 1974 (1st Edition) essay was not altered but instead a substantive introduction and other two new chapters were added (Power, Freedom and Reason and Three-Dimensional Power); moreover, a little bit more attention was given to some writers like James Scott and Michel Foucault, all of which are also in the social context of power. Power is typically a concept where a ‘first’ person (entity A) exercises power over the ‘second’ person (entity B) when A affects B in a way that is divergent to what the second person wants or would like (Lukes, 2005, 19). In the final edition Lukes discusses three dimensions of power and terms the third one to be as a personal view based on the shortcomings of other people’s views but and a more apposite way on how to evaluate power. First Face of Power (One Dimensional Power) This face of power focuses on behavior when making decisions, particularly on the core issues and fundamentally only in transparently in situations where can make observations; these often take the structure of prejudiced interests like policy preferences that are mainly demonstrated through political power. Through the concept of power individuals are able to modify or change the behavior of others when it comes to the process of making decisions, which is why it is considered to be a behavioral aspect; however, the person in power in different situations prevails in the decision making process. Principally, this first face of power, which is one-dimensional, focuses on behavior in the making of decisions on matters over which there is an observable conflict of (subjective) interests that result from policy preferences that are there where power is practiced in politics (Lukes, 2005, 19). Second Face of Power (Two-Dimensional Power) This form of power qualifies the first dimension’s critique of behavior but focuses on both decision making and non-decision making; furthermore, it covers both current and potential issues expanding more to put some attention on observable conflict to all types that might be observed explicitly and stealthily. When it comes to putting some focus on subjective interests, it also does but particularly on those seen as policy predilections or even objections. All the same, this second dimension had a lot of indifferences as it was brought forward in disproof to the pluralist theory with critics pointing out that it is possible to have an impact on how decisions are made by determining the agenda even without weighing in on already existing decision points. Lukes goes to a point of quoting Peter Bacharach and Morton Baratz in ‘Two Faces of Power’ (1962) ““to the extent that a person or group –knowingly or unknowingly –reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power”” (Luke, 2005, 20). Generally, shaping agenda is a paramount source of power that is disregarded in the model of the pluralist theory (one-dimensional view); additionally, the critique of behavioral focus on decision making and the political agenda (not necessarily through decisions), issues and potential issues, observable (overt and covert) conflict and interests (subjective) seen as policy preferences and grievances. Third Face of Power (The Three Dimensional View of Power) The three dimensional view of power is more of a ‘thoroughgoing critique’ of the one dimensional view (behavioral focus); it concentrates on the decision making in a political agenda and the control over that agenda, it also considers both current issues and political issues. However, Lukes expands the critique to include both overt and covert observable conflicts, and those that might be latent; he also illustrates that a full critique of power should include both subjective interests and those "real" interests that might be held by those excluded by the political process. Significantly, this theory brings out a whole new problem different from those in the one and two dimensional views; people at times act consciously in ways that are opposite to their most typical interest and wants. With this, this dimension is a cluster of approaches that the powerful apply to change those that do not have power in a way that the latter acts as the former wish (without any intimidation or forceful control); for instance, by forming a persistent structure of principles or false awareness. Lukes’ puts it out that both pluralists and their critics ignore a significant point with both Bacharach and Baratz and the pluralists presuming that as power is only recognized in cases of actual conflict (according to their notions), it follows that actual conflict is a necessity to power; however, they overlook the fact that the use of power that is most effectual and threatening is seen when the conflict is prevented from arising in the first place (Lukes, 2005, 27). Moreover, what happens in such a case is latent conflict that comes up when there is a challenge between the interests of those in power and the real interests of those that are not; what is more, the latter may not express or even know their interests, though the identification (interests) in the end always rests on empirically tolerable and refutable theories (Lukes, 2005, 28-29). Basically, the three dimensional view of power focuses on: decision making and control over the political agenda (not necessarily through decisions), issues (both current and potential), conflict [observable (overt or covert) and latent], and interests (subjective and real). Implications of the Research Methodology As of the one-dimensional view, power is visualized as premeditated and dynamic; concurrently, from this it should be measured through evaluating and studying how it is exercised and put into practice. Through looking at Dahl’s ‘Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City’ there are instances where dissimilar interests conflict in the political arena by the political characters and groups; in such a situation the center of attention is on decision making behavior on matters where there is apparent conflict of prejudiced interests as depicted by policy preferences. Critics are under the notion that not concrete decisions alone reflect power since individuals or even groups can deliberately limit decision making to fairly non- contentious issues by impacting values of the community and political dealings, including the rituals. Bacharach and Baratz (1970,8) also agree that power can also be located in the capacity to form barriers hindering the public airing of policy conflicts; on the other hand, this would call for the examining of both decision making and non-decision making. Definitely, the two-dimensional view of power is limited in that it focuses only on observable conflicts (overt or covert); according to Lukes A can exercise power over B through influencing, molding or even determining what they want and are most interested in. From this, this dimension is over-concentrating on behaviorism (evaluating concrete decisions) not taking into consideration that inaction can also be result of behavior that based on a society and its culture. Another point of view that is used to try and prove how inadequate this is from the claim that non-decision making power is only seen when there are complaints that are overlooked hence being left out of the political process as issues that need addressing (Connolly, 1972, 462). In line with this and the rest of the critics, power can be put into effect by averting grievances; basically, by securing the acceptance of the status quo because there is no other alternative, it is beneficial or since it is seen as natural and cannot be subjected to change (Hindess, 1996, 15). Concomitantly, it is this notion that leads to the third face of power making it very contentious and fundamental at the same time. The three-dimensional view is a comprehensive view that Lukes uses to make people considerate of the processes through which impending and relative issues are held in reserve when it comes to politics; might be by individual decisions or by practices of a social force or institution. Significantly, this view focuses on the how the concept of latent conflict is paramount; where there the interests of two parties are contradicting in the essence that those in power put theirs first overlooking the real interests of the other. Latent conflict poses multiple problems to intellectuals of sociology or political science, mainly because the line between there is only a thin line between social determinism and lack of awareness about a group’s interests. Conversely, Lukes argues that these interests are pragmatically ascertainable, and hence they cannot be assumed as sociologically given but require discovering and analysis one by one. In tandem, there are difficulties expected once the three dimensional view of power in empirical research; for instance, identification of the relevant counterfactuals and the process of the alleged exercising of power. At the outset, putting power into effect might involve inaction rather than evident action making the point how to find a casual link between inaction and its consequences like the non-appearance of a political issue (Bruce, 1985, 205). On the other hand, the exercising may be unconscious and may also be exercised by collectives like groups of leaders and institutions; expansively, this will bring confusion of through which mode and where a person is to draw the line between structural determination and the exercise of power. In conclusion, Lukes does not believe in theoretical incorporation of power to a system characterized by utter structural determination under the belief there would be no power. Power is all about choice which is why Lukes claims that identifying a particular process as an exercise of power is more of making the assumption that there is a place in the process where possibility to act different is tolerated, and this is holds for both groups and institutions. Generally, Lukes is very correct on his view point that locating power or recognizing it is the same as fixing responsibility for consequences that result from the action or inaction of certain specifiable representatives. Bibliography Bacharach, P & Baratz, S. M, (1962) ‘Two Faces of Power,’ American Political Science Review Vol. 56, pp. 947-52 Bacharach, P and Baratz, M.S. (1970) Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: Open University Press. Lukes, S, 2005, Power; A Radical View: Palgrave MacMillan. Vol. 1(2), p.1-192 Dahl, R. A, 1961, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City: New Haven, CT. Yale University Press. Doyle, J. 1998 Power and Contentment: Politics. Vol.18 (1), p. 49-56. Dahl, R, 1957, Concept of Power: Behavioural Science. Vol.2 pp. 201-05 Bruce R, 1985 The Mysterious Case of Vanishing Hegemony; or Is Mark Twain Really Dead: International Organization. Vol.39, p. 207-31. Ball, T. 1992 New Faces of Power: T.E. Wartenberg (ed.) Rethinking Power. Albany: State University of New York Barbalet, J.M. 1987, Power, Structural Resources and Agency: Perspectives in Social Theory. Vol. 8 (1), p. 1-24 Benton, T, 1981 Objective Interests and the Sociology of Power: Sociology. Vol.15 (2), p.161-84. Connolly, W, 1972. On Interests in Politics: Politics & Society.Vol.2 (3), p. 459-77. Dyrberg, T. Berg, 1997. The Circular Structure of Power: Politics, Identity, Community. London: Verso. Hindess, B, 1996, The Supreme Exercise of Power: Lukes and Critical Theory: in Discourses of Power: From Hobbes to Foucault. Oxford: Blackwell Barnett, M. &Raymond D, 2005, Power in International Politics: International Organization. Vol.59 (1) (), p. 39-75  Berenskoetter, F. ‘Thinking about Power’, in Berenskoetter and M.J. Williams (eds.): Power in World Politics. Vol.2, p. 1-22. Foucault, M. 1965 Discipline and Punish. London: Tavistock. Gill, S. 2008, Power and Resistance in the New World Order, 2nd edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Vol.2, p. 80-122 & 206-36. Marsh, D, 2002, Pluralism and the Study of British Politics’, in C. Hay (ed.): British Politics Today. Cambridge: Polity  Susan Strange, ‘Power in the World Economy,’ States and Markets pp. 23-42. Read More