Talk:Power (social and political)

Merge

In the German page, the "bases of power" have already been integrated to the article on power.

I agree with the sugestion of merging the 2 articles about power. The ideas discussed are very similar.

Thanks

Pace?

what is meant by pace in "(pace advocates of empowerment)"? --Reagle 01:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quote

I can't see how the above quote belongs in this article. It seems to me they should create their own article if they want to advertise/promote their organization.

"the creation in 1990 of a permanent coalition of progressive organizations — the ... is a coalition of labor and community organizations with broad demographic representation of the state." Jim 16:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Correct citation for Galbraith?

The article cites An Anatomy of Power by Galbraith JK; the only citation I can find is for The anatomy of power / John Kenneth Galbraith; Publisher info Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1983. I wonder if the cite is wrong in the article, or if this is the one intended?

Steven Lukes

Steven Lukes found the assumption about power is “that A in some way affects B” to be too broad because everyone is affecting others in countless manners. In order to specify when a notion of power is significant in order to be useful for analysis the conception needs to be specified. A more specific conception of power that specifies when it is significant for analysis is when “A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B's interests”. Note that a distinction can be made between B's real interests and B's subjective interests. This applies to situations where B does not express or even is not conscious of real interests. Admitted, it is difficult to ascertain what the real interests of B are. Only B can identify real interests under conditions of relative autonomy and independent of A's power.

The first dimension of Lukes three-dimensional view of power focuses on observable behaviour where decisions are made over issues with an observable conflict of interest. This is akin to the definition Max Weber gave to power; “Power is the probability of individuals realizing their wills despite the resistance of others”. This notion of power can be analysed fairly easy, because it focuses on observable data. It merely requires the analyst to take note of every successful attempt of A to “get B to do something that B would otherwise not do”. However, this notion alone is too limited in various aspects. These shortcomings are addressed in the other two dimensions of Lukes view on power.

In the second dimension of Lukes view on power the behavioural aspect of the first dimension is critiqued. It asserts that B can be prevented by A from taking decisions on issues “over which there is an observable conflict of interests”. The action where A suppresses B to voice an opinion is termed nondecision. One way nondecisionmaking can be achieved is if A engages in creating or reinforcing structural issues, such as social and political values and institutional practices, limiting the political process to only those issues that are in A's interest. This is akin to Elmer Eric Schattschneider statement that “organization is the mobilization of bias”.

Nondecision-making can be achieved by controlling the political agenda, but it can also be achieved by securing the compliance of B through various means. These means are coercion, influence, authority, force, and manipulation. Coercion is understood as the threat of deprivation. Influence exists if A changes B's course of action without threat. Authority exists if B experiences A's command to be compatible with his own values, either because of legitimate and reasonable content or because it arrive through a legitimate and reasonable procedure. In the case of force A removes B's choice of compliance or noncompliance. Manipulation is an aspect of force, because compliance is gained absent B's recognition of the source or exact nature of A's demand.

In both the first and second dimension of Lukes view on power there is a necessity for observable conflict between interests. This becomes problematic if A successfully suppresses B's voice to be heard. However, Lukes ascertains that although the interests of B are excluded from public attention and controversy, they can still be observed outside the political system by an investigator.

The third dimension of Lukes view on power is addressing power where there appears to be an absence of conflict. This dimension has a more collectivist perspective on power, asserting that mobilization of bias is sustained by social and cultural behaviour of groups, and institutional practices. It recognizes that leaders are not only responding to preferences, but are also shaping them. Shaping preferences can be achieved by controlling information, and the processes of socialization. The absence of conflict is achieved, because A influences, shapes, or determines the perceptions, cognitions, and preferences of B. This can be done either through manipulation or legitimate authority. This dimension appears to be similar to the concept of hegemony developed by Antonio Gramsci, which is power obtained through the manufacture of consent. In the case of consent through manipulation there is still an absence of conflict, despite the decisions are going against B's real interests. This is because B's “perceptions, cognitions, and preferences are shaped in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they see it as natural and unchangeable, or because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial”. It is also possible that B gives consent through authority, even is the decisions are going against B's real interest. This can be explained if B values collective interests, or the individual interests of A, as being of higher importance than his own interests.

The concept of inequality is understood as a difference of power between actors. This difference can be analysed by looking at differences between power resources that actors have available, can access, and are able to utilize. Power resources can exist in the form of capital, property rights, political influence, discursive resources, production and access to information, violence and force, authority, weapons of the weak (to be understood as every day resistance in the form of lifestyle choices. For example, consumption habits) and social category (gender, ethnicity, age, class, nationality). Inequality can arise among any or all of these power resources, directly affecting the power an actor has in relation to other actors. In turn the power an actor has can affect the power resources, creating a potential vicious or virtuous cycle. This suggests that increases or decreases in inequality do not always happen intentionally, but can be a result of such vicious or virtuous cycles.