Lukesa's third dimension of power - Essay Example

With greater power comes greater responsibility”, as Spiderman is famously quoted over and over again. The concept by which our cartoon hero has beenfighting over is in fact more contentious and controversial in the real world; specifically in the academe. Efforts to define “power” in a substantial and all-encompassing manner have been exerted, yet the greatest of our thinkers could only spell out a good fraction of the whole idea. This paper begins with Karl Marx’s conception of power as defined by those who are able to control of the society‘s economic production. In Marx’s own terminology, they are called the “Ruling Class” and their power resides in their economic capability which allows them to dominate over other structural aspects of the society such as the political arena or even the ideological sphere without necessarily bending over to the demands or influences of the general public. Another prominent and useful working definition of power was spearheaded by Max Weber where he demonstrated the subject matter at hand as the ability of agent “A” to make agent “B” yield to something the latter does not want or refuse to do. Hence, power is exercised and made concrete by agent “A” who had directly influenced the decision of agent “B” to serve his own purpose. In the theories abovementioned, power requires a kind of relationship where there exists an entity who displays an observable and concrete behavior of being able to manipulate the entity who is subjected to this same manipulation. In the dialectics of power, this kind of conception is labeled as the first dimension of power by which the analysis centers on the observable conflicts of interests and its actors who would claim victory by having its interests prevail over the matter and the losers who would yield to the victor’s scheme. Moving forward, while the first dimension of power limits the definition to what is external and observable behaviors of domination, the second dimension digs deeper into the very nature of power. For the proponents of this notion, power is also exercised subtly by manipulating the process of decision-making or the lack of it. Here, power is not necessarily highly observable as and exclusively executed by the dominant alone. Even the subjugated is also able to exercise this kind of power by means of manipulating a situation that would generate only the kind of results that are deemed “safe” or “acceptable”. Hence, the dominant’s power is not necessarily outwardly challenged and therefore will not create a substantial external conflict. A case in point is how powerful individuals are able to sensor off information that may adversely affect their interests. Hence, they are able to get a hold of their won dominance without necessarily invoking an outward conflict while at the same time getting the opponent and/or the subjugated to adhere to his/her cause. By filtering this relevant but unsafe information, he is able to ensure for himself the benefit of the end-result. Dominance is therefore maintained; and this is achieved by exercising power through manipulation of the decision process, and not necessarily the manipulation of the people involved. A more elaborate and contemporary theory of power emerged in the 1980s by the authorship of Steven Luke. In his book “Power: A Radical View”, he argues that the first and second dimensions are not sufficient to analyze power. He claims that there is an underlying third dimension of power which is more subtle than the first two. His theory is valued because he was able to challenge the predominant belief that power is only measurable by observable and concrete behaviors. At the same time, his position was also able to uphold the validity and truth of the two preceding theories. Luke begins with a premise that people are generally subjected to different kinds of domination. And whether people like to accept this fact or not, we are at some point naturally pre-programmed into accepting some kind of dominations without any objection. With reference to the first and second dimensions of power, we see here that there is a dominant-dominated kind of relationship. But Luke’s discussion dissects this relationship further and goes beyond to argue that agents are able to dominate over others without necessarily being aware of the power they are exercising. And the subjugated are also the same agents who perpetuate this system because they themselves are not necessarily conscious of the existing subjugation. Luke’s third dimension of power is applied in this circumstance by focusing on how the dominated adheres to their own domination sans realization. Aptly put, the third dimension is a kind of power that “prevents the formation of grievances by shaping perceptions, cognition, and preferences in such a way as to ensure the acceptance of a certain role in the existing order”, (Maximilliano Lorenzi). While Focault purports this kind of power relation by the people’s willingness to comply with existing structures, Luke on the hand argues that people comply “blindly” because a certain behavior is normative. Here it is presumed that there exist no alternative action points other than following the existing pattern. Hence, the agents are not conscious of the fact that they are being dominating or are being dominated. Taking from Nussbaum and Sens’ demonstration of Luke’s third dimension of power, Indian women readily and unquestioningly share her meal for her husband and male children at the expense of her health. But this does not necessarily mean that her husband is intentionally forcing her wife to give up her food because he has more strength and could possibly strangle her if she doesn’t yield. Neither is it a case of a male child consciously subjugating his mother because he has a hungrier appetite than hers. This is a case of power relations exercised without full consciousness by both agents; where these agents are programmed to accept existing dominant structures which propel them to act in ways they cannot immediately rationalize. In the instance that they are able to define what they are doing, they are however unable to construct a sensible or even logical explanation of doing so. In the first and second dimensions of power, there is an obvious intention of winning over a competing interest. But in Luke’s conception of power’s third dimension, there is not even a distinguishable conflicting and/or competing interests as demonstrated by the scenario earlier. What it offers are only the expected beneficial end results that can only be achieved by a repetitive mode of action. No intention is even required from the dominant’s end. It’s just that any form of deviant actions will pose a possibility of imbalance and disruption to the normal flow of relationship which may generate undesirable outcomes. And to prevent this from happening, it is but logical therefore to unconsciously continue following what is being done over time. Hence, this action causes the perpetuation of the dominant-dominated social structure without again being cognizant, knowledgeable, and deliberate about it. Quoting Luke, this captures the very idea of the third dimension of power: “Power can be at work, including compliance by influencing desires and beliefs without being intelligent and intentional” (P.136). For instance, while the first and second dimensions of power requires the imposition of an interest over another which more often than not results to violence, the third dimension (being subtle in nature) requires non-violence for the actors to define the situation. Once these agents become “aware” of the end result, the processes to achieve this output may well be manipulated to work for the common advantage; a true but subtle display of power. To theoretically demonstrate, the emergence of extreme measure such as coup d’etat is, we presume, a product of innumerable unaddressed social problems. A declaration of this extreme measure is an ultimate display of power. Military corps protecting the interest over the State clash over civilians who are also protecting their rights as a citizen of his/her country. In this scenario, the act of declaring a military coup is evident of the first dimension of power. The second dimension may well be shown by those who holds key positions in the decision making or those who have access to important information. For argument’s sake we may presume stakeholders of the media as the primary actors here. Certain information may be news blocked and this may affect the perception of the general public about the extent of the real situation, hence, hampering their judgment and disabling them to fully craft out a plan that would overthrew the incumbent government. No violence is ignited from the part of the dominant, but power is enforced. This uprising and social unrest brings into consciousness the knowledge of the unequal and oppressive power play in the social structure. But because the state is hegemonic, we unquestioningly accept its dominance over us. In fact, it is but natural for us to accept that we are not to rebel against our militia. We are taught that going against the State is considered unlawful and therefore undesirable. And there is indeed an absolute truth to that statement. And here is when the third dimension of power comes to play. We know that the state has been oppressive but we continually adhere to its rules to maintain social balance. Now we ask ourselves if we have a better resort to challenge the hegemony of the State. With its power defined at the grassroots level of government agencies, we are offered very little and more often no alternative at all other than to acquiesce in its power. Hence, we become our own perpetrators of the same dominant-dominated system. Power is a very interesting concept as it is evident whether in the microcosm of family life to macrocosm of State affairs. The differences in its conception make this dialectic rich and even contestable. It is but appropriate then to render power with multiple working definitions and to acknowledge it as multi-faceted depending on the context it is applied to. What holds true is that whether first, second, or third dimension of power, there will always be active agents who will embody the interplay and sets of values, interests, or purposes that will propel them to act in various ways. The relevance of Luke’s third dimension of power finds its value in the everyday life where the most basic of our social problems are flaunted. Since people are naturally disengaged from this kind of intellectual discussion, it is almost natural too to conclude that those who have access to this kind of knowledge may well use it to their own advantage. In fact, those who know may even use that kind of knowledge to make a circumstance work for them. And this begins another cycle of power relations that will continue to exist. References: Allen, A., 2002. Power, Subjectivity, and Agency: Between Arendt and Foucault. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 10(2), p.131-149.  Béland, D., 2010. The Idea of Power and the Role of Ideas. Political Studies, 8(2), p.145-154. Clegg, S., 2008. Power , Theorizing , and Nihilism Stewart Clegg.Management, 3(1), p.65-87. Dowding, K., 2006. Three-Dimensional Power: A Discussion of Steven Luke: Power: A Radical View. Political Studies Review, 4(2), p.136-145. Greer, S.L., 2009. Power : Politcs and Policy Consequences. of Power, 397(03). Lorenzi, M. (2005). Power : A Radical View by Steven Lukes. Crossroads, 6(2), 87-95. Lukes, S., 1974. Power: A Radical View, Macmillan Scott, J. 1992. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale University Press. Read More