Researching Politics and International Relations: Power - Term Paper Example

Power The meaning of power as an essential concept of political and social sciences, has been given different definitions by different scientists, depending on their scientific contexts. As a student of International Relations, I have been looking for that one true definition of the concept, but only to find various propositions and theories by political scientists, social scientists, philosophers and other scholars. These, however, are not enough to provide an encompassing definition of power that is acceptable to all spheres of science. One of the most notable theories written about power has been by Steven Lukes (1974) – u wanted reference on Lukes on the next paragraph, but I’m putting it here at the first mention of him, more appropriate, which proposes that power has three dimensions, which are the decision-making dimension, the agenda-setting dimension, and the preference-shaping dimension. This concept of power personally interests me, and I can say that, by far, is the most comprehensive theory on power. In this paper, I will expound further on this theory, particularly contrasting it to the pluralists’ concept of power, which mainly recognizes only one face of power - the exercised power through decision-making shared by many interest groups. Lukes’ proposition of a three-faced power has been met with different reactions by his fellow scientists. Several papers have been written by various scientists contending on the validity of Lukes’ propositions, while some other scientific papers have been written reinforcing Lukes’ claims. As Shapiro (2006) put it, some of Lukes’ early critics argued that the proposed third face of power did not conform to the possibility of scientific evaluation because it was dependent on real interests that were not observable. On the other hand, scientists like Gaventa (1982) attempts to reinforce Lukes’ theory through the use of Clear Fork Valley in Central Appalachia ( what is this explain why mentioning this here – cos this is the strongest and most popular paper written attempting to validate Lukes’ theory) as an empirical example in his discernment of the unseen or intangible faces of power, as posited by Lukes. – ok still from what I ‘ve asked previously I can’t see what is your position, at least say which of thee authors you prefer more, disagree, agree? – Its not appropriate to agree or disagree here to any of the three mentioned cos we’re only showing those opposing and validating Lukes’ theory, as a way of presenting evidence of our claim that indeed there are varied reactions to Lukes’ theory by his fellow scientists. As I mentioned earlier, there is no encompassing definition of power that satisfies all spheres of science, thus definitions of the concept vary from one scientific discipline to the other. There are several generic definitions of power, among which I like the simplicity of how Domhoff, W. G. (2005) puts it: page please, it looks here like you are citing- it’s an electronic source,an online publication of a university, the complete details and url are listed on the ref list, so no page can be indicated; also it’s not a direct quote from the source power is the ability to realize one’s wishes and to produce the effects one wants to produce. Another interesting and more systematic definition which I have always preferred is provided by Bertrand Russell, one of the great philosophers of the 20th century. Russell defines power in a simplistic yet profound way by saying that power is one’s ability to get his desired results (Russell, 1938, as cited by Domhoff, W.G., 2005). Although still not in agreement on the definition of power, it is good to note, however, that scientists agree that power is necessary and is an inevitable component of all people’s relations, affecting every facet of people’s lives (Kocev, E., 2002). In trying to define power, several scientists have proposed theories, as can be gleaned from history. Looking through the various theories written about power, I can generally categorize them as analytical political theories, modern social theories, and postmodern social theories. Although there are many who have done several works on the concept of power, it is worth to mention the main theorists who have helped shape and enrich the concept of power as it is today. I can mention a few, like Robert Dahl; Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz; Steven Lukes; Hannah Arendt; Karl Marx; Max Weber; Talcott Parsons; Nicos Poulantzas; Niccolo Machiavelli; Friedrich Nietzsche; and Michel Foucault. ( oh please, I’ve asked to get rid of these names , we don’t need to show off that we know these names… actually they naming these authors does not bring anything to the essay but just naming them, you don’t conclude from this etc, so I guess what it is just useless, we have 2000 words to make as much arguments as possible to prove your stance from the intro ( which you have to work on as well) not naming the people like that.) – i’m not sure ur synoptic essay will be complete without at least mentioning the theories and theorists. Synoptic essay includes summarizing or historically reckoning related events/topics/etc before even coming to ur own opinion of it all, right? Besides, if u analyze the paragraph, it has a bearing on the other paragraphs and isn’t just a senseless naming of names, u were categorizing them, putting a bit of ur analysis. Talcott Parsons (1951) espouses a systems theory whereby power is created by society as a whole and is therefore a consensual circulating medium. Meanwhile, Nicos Poulantzas (1978) theorizes that power is created and defined through the ability of the group of people to achieve their objectives and interests. These two theories both see power as emanating from a group of people rather from just one individual. I am inclined to disagree that it is only through a group of people or a society that power is possible. These theories disregard the innate power of an individual, which is equally, if not more, potent as that of a group’s. I believe that it is not in the numbers, whether there are several individuals or groups of individuals, that power is exercised or manifested. I believe that whether an individual or several individuals can have and manifest power. On the other hand, Max Weber (1947) proposes that power is defined as any relationship where one person imposes his or her own will despite resistance from the other. Robert A. Dahl (1957) posits similarly, in that "A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do" (Dahl, 1957, p.202). These theories are actually similar in the sense that ( in that, confusing tructure – yes, words “the sense” were missing) Dahl builds on Weber’s earlier theory. They both recognize the innate power of an individual and not only groups or societies. However, they both show power as a manifest thing and always in relation to another individual or group yielding to the other. This for me is rather a very limited way to see power, as a cause and effect or as a result of one’s actions on another, as I believe that power involves more than one’s yielding to another’s action or prodding. There are stronger, more subtle or, as Baratz and Bachrach put it, there are hidden dimensions of power besides what is seen. Further, two theorists worked together, building mainly on most of Dahl’s theory. Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) however, went beyond Dahl’s theory and argue that decision-making, which is the direct exercise of power, is only one face of power. They stress that the non-decision making part of power, which involves manipulation by powerful groups, is the hidden face of power. With this proposition, Bachrach and Baratz gave emphasis to the unseen yet very potent face of power, that which is yet hidden. This, for me, makes a lot of sense already, and I can say that at this point, the two theorists were at the verge of realizing what Lukes later realized and proposed about the third face of power. They were not, however, able to look beyond their theory since they were too focused on strengthening their proposition. Finally, Steven Lukes (1974) proposes that there are three faces or dimensions of power. In his classical three-dimensional theory, Lukes posits that the first dimension of power is the observable which is decision-making. He adds that, apart from the ability to decide, it is also essential to be able to have control of political agenda or the ability to set agenda, which is the second dimension of power. Lukes adds that being able to set the agenda is not enough, for power must also include the ability to persuade others to conform to one’s personal or group agenda, which is essentially the third dimension of power. This, for me, provides the best picture of what the concept of power is all about. As I understand from my readings, even in the socio-political landscape of the world in the last decade, I have seen how power of those reckoned to be world powers, both their manifest and hidden power, changed situations drastically, or maintained status quo, depending on their whims and caprices. In the deeper understanding of the concept of power, it has been categorized politically from either the elitist perspective and the pluralist perspective. The former views society as divided into the few who rule and the many who are ruled. This perspective contends that the few who rule,or the elite, effectively monopolize power and enjoy its advantages. On the other hand, the pluralist point of view has been prevalent especially in the United States, contending that, after 20th century modernization of the West, political power has become significantly more fragmented and diffused. The contemporary Western political system, more especially the American political system, is viewed as a balance of power amidst interlinked groups like economic, religious, ethnic, and other groups. Given all these theories and facts, my question now is, how far have the second and third faces of power, as propositioned by Lukes, provided a successful challenge to the pluralist conception of power? The pluralist view is often regarded as one-dimensional view, with much emphasis on decision-making as the exercise of power. Robert Dahl, one of the major proponents of pluralism, proposes power as the ability of A to persuade B to do something that B would otherwise not do. In other words, the power that A has over B is defined in terms of B, and the measure of whether A prevails depends on the rate of success or failure A has over B. As it is, this view is rather myopically focused on the behavioral manifestation of power, and does not look at what is behind the manifest exercise of power. It regards power as only an observable result of something it does not try to define. It misses the dynamism behind or beyond what it regards to be power. Lukes’ theory of three-dimensional power, therefore, is a stark contrast to the pluralistic, one-dimensional view of power. Over and beyond the decision-making focus of the pluralistic, Lukes views power in its two states: the actual power, which is being actually able to change someone’s views; and the potential power, which is when one’s views are taken into consideration by others. This now captures the dynamism that is behind and beyond power as seen through its manifest face of decision-making. Lukes’ theory provides an understanding of the hidden yet very potent faces of power. To further elaborate how far has Lukes’ theory challenged the pluralistic perspective of power, let me state some salient points. In a pluralistic society, where different interest groups share in the exercise of power, the power inherent within each group is limited and constricted given its own definition of power, which is nothing beyond decision-making. In Lukes’ perspective, however, power involves the ability to put an issue over issues in an agenda. Further, it involves the power to prevent an issue being put into the agenda, thereby preventing other people to have options or alternatives. This is the so-called non-decision making aspect of power, which, when examined closely, actually plays around manipulating people in very subtle yet firmly persuasive manner. This however helps prevent potentially controversial issues from generating observable conflicts. I believe that, for me or for anyone to fully understand and have a real grasp of this second dimension of power, it is essential be able to identify potential issues which nondecision-making prevents from being actualized. This aspect of power greatly poses a challenge to the pluralistic view, since the use of persuasion to push forward an individual’s or a group’s agenda as well as to prevent an issue from being put forward, is quite difficult if not impossible in a concept of shared or dispersed power among groups of people. The other aspect of power as proposed by Lukes is the moulding of people’s ideas or manipulating how people think. As it is ideological in nature, the results of it may benefit the other group but may or may not damage the group that is being manipulated. This dimension of power is particularly the most powerful when truly exercised. Furthermore, Lukes stresses that for more proper understanding of the exercises of power, the role of interests must be taken into account. For Lukes, power is one’s ability to bring about significant outcomes which help advance the interests of the party in power and to systematically bring about conflict to the interest of the parties with less or no power. ( great, but please comment on this) Power, as broadly defined above, only emphasizes and calls my attention to how power works not only through decision-making and non-decision making, but rather through broader control over the political agenda. Consequently, this may involve the establishment of which issues should be considered to be real issues. It further stresses the different existing conflicts and potential conflicts. Added to these, this reminds me also that perhaps one of the most insidious ways that politics operates is by properly ensuring that, in the first place, conflict does not even arise. Power also involves circumstances where even though individuals may freely make their own decisions, their interests, which is basically defined as their basic human capabilities, are violated. In other words, I think that, perhaps what Lukes wants to do is for people to radically broaden their perspectives about what constitutes power, and he does this by drawing attention to how power involves shaping people’s preferences in a way that is even contrary to their own interest. In conclusion, power may be one- , two- , or three-dimensional, and it may be defined and viewed through different convictions and perspectives, but it is important to know that power is a latent and a potent force, and can be used and abused by those who have or by those who believe they have. There is no one right or wrong view of the concept, nor one theory that is more useful over the other, since they all have contributed to the shaping of the concept. Although there is no conclusive and comprehensive definition of the concept to date, it must be recognized that power is an essential and inevitably necessary part of political and social sciences, as well as of people’s everyday lives. References Bachrach,P., Baratz, M.S., (1962), ‘Two faces of Power’, American Political Science Review, vol.56, pp. 947-952 Dahl, R. A. (1957), ‘The Concept of Power’, Behavioural Science, vol. 2, pp.201-215 Dahl, R.A. (1961), ‘Who governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, London: Yale University Press Domhoff, W.G. (2005), Studying Power, Who Rules America?, http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/studying_power.html, retrieved 17 March 2009 Gaventa, J. (1980), ‘Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence & Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley’, University of Illinois Press Knights, D. and Willmott, H.C. (1983), ‘Dualism and Domination: an analysis of Marxian, Weberian and existentialist perspectives’, Australian, New Zealand Journal of Sociology, vol.19,no.1: pp. 33-49 Kocev, E (2002), ‘Modern concept of power as a social and economic category’, University of Rousse, Bulgaria, http://www.ejournalnet.com/Contents/Issue_2/4/4_2002.htm, retrieved 17/03/09 Lukes, S. ( 1974), ‘Power: A radical view’, London, McMillan Parsons, T. (1951). ‘The Social System’, London: Routledge Poulantzas, N. (2000 [1978]), ‘State, Power, Socialism’, New York: Verso Shapiro, I. (2006), ‘On the second edition of Lukes’ Third Face’, Political Studies Review, vol.4, pp.146-155 Weber, Max (1947),’ The Theory of Social and Economic Organization’, Translated by A. M. Henderson & Talcott Parsons, The Free Press Read More