Review of Political Debate - Outline Example

Identify and explain Dahl’s main claim regarding power (in Hay 1997) Dahl’s main claim regarding power is that power is a form of exercising control over another person and making the other person do what he or she would not normally do. In Dahl’s conception power is a form of control that one person exercises over the other person irrespective of the context and the Dahl’s approach is an agency centred one. In Dahl’s conception, the exercise of power takes place irrespective of the different situations and possibilities that might exist among and between individuals. For Dahl, the exercise of power must be seen in as an entity within the decision making complex. Dahl does not distinguish between the forms of power and postulates what can be called a pluralistic approach towards power that has been called “classical pluralism” (Dahl, 1957). Dahl ignores the agenda setting behaviour of Bacharach and Baratz and instead concentrates on the conflict aspect of a given situation to study the exercise of power. Further, Dahl does not differentiate between an individual’s perceived interest and real interests. For Dahl, both kinds of interests should be viewed in a conflict scenario where one person prevails over the other in the exercise of power. What he does not account for is the fact that the real interests of a person is what dictates the practice of power and hence they are the determinants of who wins a power duel. Identify and explain Bachrach and Baratz’ main claims regarding power Bacharach and Baratz view power as essentially being janus faced. At one end of the spectrum, power can be exercised in a limited decision making context and on the other hand, the exercise of power happens on a large scale. Bacharach and Baratz’s main conception of power is to move beyond the decision making aspects of power and instead focus on the nature of power as a means of perpetuating elite domination and protection of one’s turf. Hence, Bachrach and Baratz argue that dominant elite might give away some concessions to the minority elements as a means of mollifying and appeasing the minority. But, the essential hegemony of the dominant elite is unchallenged (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962). Bachrach and Baratz view power within the context of agenda setting and move beyond the narrow process of decision making. For them, agenda setting is as much important as decision making and the latter must be placed within the context of the former. As we have seen in the previous paragraph, once the agenda setting becomes important, it is the exercise of power for the interests of a group or an individual as opposed to that within a specific context that becomes important. Hence, according to Bacharach and Baratz, elite control is thus shaped by an urge to preserve the status quo and it is here that the Janus faced nature of power comes into play. Identify and explain Luke’s’ main claims regarding power (in Hay 1997) Luke’s main claims regarding power are about the real and perceived interests of the two individuals in a power relationship. According to Luke, if a person A is exercising power over Person B, the power relation is shaped by the real and perceived interests of A and B. Once person B realises that his or her interests are being subverted, he terminates the relationship leading to the act of power being self annihilating (Luke, 1974). Further, the successful exercise of power by A over B can go on until B realises that his or her autonomy is at stake and hence once the realisation sets in, B tries to get out of the power relationship. Luke essentially sees power as a negative concept and focuses on what ought to be instead of what is. Luke is a radical theorist for whom the concept of power is a contested one and hence, Luke views the exercise of power as essentially subverting to the interests of the minorities upon whom the power is being exercised. Luke sees the essence of power as being negative and hence its termination good. Identify and explain the way in which Hay (1997) criticises Bachrach and Baratz’ claims about power Hay critiques Bacharach and Baratz’s conception of power by stating that they should have considered situations where the person B over whom power is being exercised as not feeling insubordinate to person A and hence this essentially two –dimensional view of power needs to be refined to include situations where the person B’s may not perceive that his or her interests are at stake. Thus, there might be situations where we need to move beyond the agenda setting space and instead concentrate on situations where B does not feel the need for conflict and is a participant in the power equation. The essential criticism is about the need to move beyond agenda setting and instead concentrate on a much broader canvas of the exercise of power. Identify and explain the way in which Hay (1997) critics Luke’s’ claims about power Hay critiques Luke’s conception of power by stating that Luke has provided a three dimensional conception of power that breaks the impasse of the behavioural model that Bacharach and Baratz have propounded. Hay demonstrates the need to think in what is instead of what ought to be (Hay, 1997). Hay criticizes Luke’s attempts to raise the spectre of false consciousness that many thought had been expunged from the annals of political and social theory. This is the attempt by Luke to give the analyst supreme powers of arbitration. To explain this further, when A exercises power over B and B’s real interests are compromised as a result of the exercise of power by A, the observer who can identify B’s real interests and points to him or her about this becomes the final arbiter. However, Hay praises Luke for redefining the concept of power in a theoretical framework that has no peers in comparison with the dogmatic models of other political scientists. There is a subtle note of sarcasm when Hay points out all of Luke’s protagonists are male, thereby elevating the concept of power as being exercised by Men over women. Though there is no attempt to take the politically correct route, it is nonetheless a point of view about the discourse on power being essentially about Men exercising power. Identify and explain the way in which Hay (1997) proposes to redefine power Hay calls for a redefinition of power that reflects the multifaceted exercise of power and its application over individuals and groups of people. There is a need to distinguish between “power of” and “power over” as it is essentially a negative connotation to recognise only “power over” conception of the perks and privileges. There is also a need to recognise the conduct shaping result of power and move beyond the contextual and two dimensional space and yet considering the normative aspects in the three dimensional conception (Hay, 1997). Hay further calls upon for looking beyond the normative aspect of power relationships of the context shaping and the sources of direct and indirect power that exist in a relationship. Identify and explain how Doyle (1998) criticises Hay’s 1997 redefinition of the concept of power Doyle criticises Hay’s 1997 definition of power on the grounds that Hay criticised Luke’s conception of power being overly negative and Hay misunderstood the concept of interests and manipulation inherent in a power relationship. Doyle states that Hay had overemphasised the concept of B’s perceived and real interests and instead Doyle proposes situations where B is a willing participant in the power relationship. For instance, a prisoner in a jail may not be willing to complain about abuse because he is already intimidated. Hence the concept of willingness and submission to power are inherent in the debate that Hay overlooks. Further, the concept of contentment and conflict are not easy to detect and manipulation occurs by concealment of information and the myriad ways in which power operates. Doyle also proposes the extra dimensions of power and its exercise on individuals. These dimensions are about the removal of conflict of interest and the inclusion of conflict of interest into history. An example of this is the status of women throughout the ages and in positions of subordination that provide scope for all these claims about power (Doyle, 1998). In what way does Hay (1999) believe that Doyle has misunderstood his ideas set out in the 1997 article? Hay believes that Doyle has misunderstood his ideas with respect to the normative, banishing value judgments and more importantly, the very definition of power that Hay proposes. If we take each of these arguments separately, Hay insists that though he calls for looking beyond the normative aspects of power, he also places them in the context or in the middle of the debate about power and he invites the theorists to view it in proper context. Hay insists that critics of this stance look at the formulation of the concept of power that he has defined and asks them to view in the proper context of a discussion about the meaning of power (Hay, 1999). Next, Hay’s point is that he has not removed value judgements from the conception of power as he has only criticised Luke’s tendency to overly pessimistic. At some level, Hay seems to agree with Luke about the negative connotation of power, though for academic propriety and what I suspect is a dose of political correctness, he does not call a spade a spade. And this is where Doyle has misunderstood Hay. How does Hay (1999) clarify and defend his ideas on power? Hay defends his ideas on power by stating that the concept of “power over” that is at the centre of the debate has to be clarified. For instance, Hay points that there are multiple situations where “power over” can be applied and not all situations where this is evident can be termed as power relations (Hay, 1999). Hence, his justification of his stand on Luke’s argument where he had called Luke’s theory an essentially negative one. The defence from Hay is to look to a broader perspective on the debate about power and not restrict it to the dimensions that political theorists are often found to be doing. Hay further proposes that not all social situations can be analysed in terms of power relations. The point here is that though power and politics may be synonymous, they cannot be extrapolated to all situations. Hay’s defence can be seen as a climb down as well as an attempt to set the record straight. It can also be said that there is a situation where academic power is being exercised between them. Sources Bachrach, P & Baratz, M.S. (1962). “Two faces of power”, American Political Science Review, 56, pp. 947-52 ------------. (1970). Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. New York: OUP. Dahl, R. A. (1957). “The Concept of Power”. Behavioural Science, 2, pp.201-5. Doyle, J. (1998). “Power and Contentment”. Politics, 18(1), pp. 49-56. Hay, C. (1995). “Structure and Agency”. Theory and Methods of Political Science. London: McMillan. ----------. (1997). “Divided by a common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power”, Politics, 17(1), pp.45-52 Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. London: McMillan. Read More