Compare and contrast the three faces of Power PDF

Preview

Summary

Study notes comparing the three Faces of Power Theory of Stephen Lukes. useful for exam revision...

Description

Power Compare and contrast the three faces/dimensions of power identified by Stephen Lukes Power is a fundamental concept within politics. It is seen to be one of the main objectives of analyses and study within this particular field of social science. Dowding (1996) argues that political power is essential in society, due to that it creates a basis for politics and society. Furthermore, power effectively has the ability to influence, control and manipulate behaviour among individuals. Power is a dispositional concept and can be classified in two. Firstly, ‘power to’ where it can identify the ability to achieve a desired outcome. Secondly, a more negative conception is ‘power over’, this focuses on power as a relationship. Where power is exercised over something and used to influence outcomes[CITATION Luk12 \p 109 \l 2057 ]. The simplest and clearest way of understanding how power is exercised is when A gets B to do something A wants; however, B would not otherwise do[CITATION Dah15 \l 2057 ]. However, this statement is seen to be too generic, therefore Steven Lukes constructed a more specific explanation ‘the three dimensions of power’. Which attempts to under how power is exercised and who by. Steven Lukes (1941) a British political and a social theorist, published a short book in context of the controversial topic power. It offers various definitions of the concept of power and how it may be exercised. The book ‘Radical view’ has been very influential and has arose many debates among conceptual theorist[ CITATION Dow06 \l 2057 ]. This is due to Lukes establishing a theory of power. whereby he categorises power into three different ‘faces’. Each focusing on a different aspect of power. The three stages being decision making, agenda setting and thought control. The 3 dimensions of power effectively seek to understand and explain how power can be exercised[CITATION Luk12 \p 108 \l 2057 ]. Throughout this essay it will be discussing in further detail the three dimensions of power which are identified by Stephen Lukes, as well as primarily focusing on the similarities and differences of the three faces. The first dimension which will be discussed, will be the ‘decision-making face’ a traditional democratic model, proposed by a group of theorists, one of which being Robert Dahl (1915-2014). Whom took a pluralist view of power in this stage. in the firs dimensional view on power, Dahl stresses about the diversity of power and how each individual and area exercise power independently. Furthering arguing that decision making is largely influenced on the preferences of the citizens in a society[CITATION Hil14 \p 46 \l 2057 ]. For example, officials and Politian’s who are engaging in elections and then further elected, anticipate the results of elections. Moreover, this approach involves conscious actions that can influence the content of decisions[CITATION Dah15 \p 9 \l 2057 ]. In other words when decisions have been made, individuals have a clear

understanding of how they have been made and why. With this the individual who has the power, is the one who prevails in making the decisions, for example the prime minister who has been elected by the public[ CITATION Luk12 \l 2057 ]. This first face as discussed comprises the most overt processes of formal decision making, however it is criticised due to Dahl ignoring ways in which issues and decisions never arose in the first place[ CITATION Ree13 \l 2057 ]. For instance, the first ‘decision making face’ does not emphasise the less noticeable ways in which systems may be against certain groups or biased towards others[CITATION Hil14 \p 46 \l 2057 ]. In contrast with this however the second dimensional view on power, will look at emphasising this moreexplaining and attempting to understand the bias within a political system. This is argued as considerable advance to the second face- focusing more on what goes on ‘behind the scenes’ of agenda setting[CITATION Sco05 \p 15 \l 2057 ]. In addition to this, the one-dimensional view on power focuses more on the behaviour and decision making. whereas the second dimensional view looks at both ‘decision making’ and ‘un decision making’. The first face is also largely criticised, by the second, for not providing an ‘objective’ principle for distinguishing between ‘important’ and ‘unimportant’ issues that can occur in the political field[CITATION Bac62 \p 948 \l 2057 ]. This again differs from the second face of power as they believe that such arises issues within a political system are important aspect in looking at power. It can be argued though however that both the first and second face have the same basis of understanding- in that power can be exercised to have influence over another individual one way or another. The second face- known as the ‘agenda setting’ dimension, was proposed by Bachrach and Baratz. In this stage it is looking at how power has the ability to avert decisions being made[CITATION Dah15 \p 9 \l 2057 ]. This approach differs from the ‘decision making’ face, due to that it takes an elitist approach rather than a pluralist view. However, Bachrach and Baratz don’t disagree that power can be exercised when ‘A’ makes decisions which will then have an influence of ‘B’. However, in turn the philosophers of this face do believe that the pluralists do not go far enough with their explanation, thus need a more detailed insight[CITATION Sco05 \p 15 \l 2057 ]. It is emphasised in the second face that barriers are created and reinforced to the public airing of policy conflicts and decisions, by either a certain individual or group that holds the power to do so[CITATION Bac62 \p 949 \l 2057 ]. Large or private companies are an example of such, as they can exert power in various different ways. One way in which they can do this is that businesses can lobby parties and representatives in the government, to ensure that consumer rights are not being publicly discussed. Another way that power can be exercised by these large companies and organisations, it that they have the ability to campaign to defeat proposed consumer legislation[CITATION Dah15 \p 9 \l 2057 ]. This

highlighting that the theorists focus not only on how power is exercised but it also Illustrates issues and other aspects out with the political agenda that are just as important. In contrast with the first dimensional view of power- the ‘decisions making’ face, the pluralists concentrate their attention on only how power is exercised and not the source[ CITATION Bac62 \l 2057 ]. In addition to this the second face can be seen as the ‘convert’ dimensional view of power and the first face being the ‘overt’ stage. Whereby both faces of power deal with political preferences. However, the distinction that is made is that in the ‘thought control’ face political preferences will reveal themselves during open political play. Whereas in the convert stage, political preferences will disclose themselves through others means such as complaints about political nonissues[CITATION Sad04 \p 35 \l 2057 ]. Both stages do look at how power is exerted from one person to another and that is one of the biggest yet most emphasised similarity between the two faces[ CITATION Mor06 \l 2057 ]. This then leads onto the next face of power. Whereby, similar to the other two dimensions, it looks at how power is exerted to influence another individual. As the first and second stage attempt to understand how power can be exercised to make an individual do what anther wants, the third face of goes deeper into this analysis as to how power can be used to manipulate other individuals to what they want them to think or want. With this Lukes’ third dimensional view on power takes a more radical approach. The third dimension ‘thought control’, that Lukes has established is known as the Ideological power or power to shape desires. In this model it differs drastically from both the ‘decision making face’ and the ‘agenda setting’taking a more radical view on how power is exercised. In addition, because it takes a radical approach in the third face it tends to overlie the notion of ‘soft power’ [CITATION Dah15 \p 9 \l 2057 ]. In the ‘thought control stage’, it focuses more on the relations between the real interest and political preferences[CITATION Sad04 \p 35 \l 2057 ]. Although, however it may have the same basis of thought as the ‘decision making’ and ‘agenda setting’ face, i.e. that power can influence an individual in some means or another. The ‘thought control’ stage views power as the ability to influence another individual by altering and changing what they think, need or want[CITATION Dah15 \p 9 \l 2057 ]. In a political sense this could be done by using means such as propaganda and speeches which are constructed deliberately to shapes one’s opinion. Moreover, this can also be seen as comparable to the Marxist view of ideological power[ CITATION Dah15 \l 2057 ]. This stage Differs from the other two faces, as the ‘thought control’ stage was formed to highlight that power can not only shape an agenda to favour the powerful or to function within conflict in decision making. But it is also to alternate an individual’s desires[CITATION McC13 \p 51 \l 2057 ]. Similar, however to the second dimensional view on power, the third stage looks at both current issues and

issues that may arise in the future. Whereas the first dimensional power, did not cover this so strongly [CITATION Hil14 \p 45 \l 2057 ]. It can be argued that this stage it is difficult to identify, in comparison with the first and second stage, due to that it is difficult for individuals who are under the influence of this dimension, to see its existence[CITATION Sad04 \p 37 \l 2057 ] Furthermore, ‘agenda setting’ is seen to be the most sinister stage in comparison with the other two dimensions[CITATION Dow06 \p 136-145 \l 2057 ]. Due to the manipulation that can occur in this stage. Lukes (1974) emphasises this by explaining that ‘B’ will do something that he that he would have never done before, if not under the influence of ‘A’, therefore ‘A’ shapes and determines B’s desires and what he think is correct[CITATION Sad04 \p 37 \l 2057 ][ CITATION Luk12 \l 2057 ]. In conclusion, it can be argued that one of the biggest similarities between the 3 stages, is that they all focus explicitly on the power an individual has over another individual. The difference is however, each model, looks at numerous ways power can be exerted. There is also a clear distinction between each of the faces view point. The first face of power has a pluralist perception, whilst the second-dimension takes an elitist approach. Finally, the third dimension ‘thought control’ takes a radical approach compared to the two faces- being seen as a more sinister stage. Due to that it believes that power can be exerted to manipulate another’s desires. However, in addition to this, the second and third dimensional view on power, both look at a wider perspective not only at ongoing issues but also and arising ones. The second face of power criticises the first dimension, as they argue that the first face, neglects the idea that there is control over political agenda. In addition to this creates a misleading view of politics. In comparison with the ‘decision making’ face, a similarity between both the second and third dimensional views of power, propose less evident ways of manipulation through power.

References Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). Two Faces of Power. The Americun Political Science Review, Volume 56, Issue 4, 947-952. Dowding, K. (2006, May 1). Three-Dimensional Power: A Discussion of Steven Lukes' Power: A Radical View. Retrieved from SAGE Journals: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2006.000100.x Heywood, A. (2015). Politics . London: Palgrave. Hill, M. (2014). Policy Process: A Reader. New York: Routledge. Lukes, S. (2012). Power: A Radical View . McCabe, A. (2013, August ). A three-dimensional analysis of power and engaged. Retrieved from Google Scholar : https://eprints.qut.edu.au/61956/1/Angela_McCabe_Thesis.pdf Moriss, P. (2006, May 1st). SAGE Journals . Retrieved from Steven Lukes on the Concept of Power: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2006.000104.x Reed, I. (2013, Ocober). Sociological Theory. Retrieved from Sage Journals: http://journals.sagepub.com.gcu.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1177/0735275113501792 Sadan, E. (2004). Empowerment and Community Practice. Hebrew: Hakibutz Hameuchad. Scot, J. C. (2001). Power. Cambridge: Polity Press....