Power: A Radical View

Product Information

Steven Michael Lukes FBA (born 8 March 1941) is a British political and social theorist. Currently he is a professor of politics and sociology at New York University. He was formerly a professor at the University of Siena, the European University Institute (Florence) and the London School of Economics.

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help! Essay Writing Service The article and comments about theories of power in society were interesting but unsatisfying, and prompted me to formulate the following analysis of power: He is a member of the editorial board of the European Journal of Sociology and directs a research project on what is left of the socialist idea in Western and Eastern Europe. Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs. View our servicesOne of Lukes' academic theories is that of the "three faces of power," presented in his book, Power: A Radical View. This theory claims that power is exercised in three ways: decision-making power, non-decision-making power, and ideological power. [ citation needed] [6] Robert Dahl exemplifies the pluralistic view of power with his analysis of the power structure in New Haven, Connecticut; in the 1950s (Domhoff, 2005). In Dahl’s view, there were a number of influential groups whose opinions held weight when it came to making and influencing decisions about the city (Domhoff, 2005). His conclusion about the power structure in, New Haven was that no single group held the monopoly on power (Domhoff, 2005). Although there were inequalities within the society, the fact that power was dispersed among different elites with different interests at heart meant that the situation was one of ‘dispersed inequalities’; where no one group controlled all of the important resources (Domhoff, 2005). In hindsight, it seems a little dubious to refer to these as "dimensions" of power, rather than aspects or forms of power. To call them "dimensions" somehow suggests that overall power is a vector of quantities in three or more orthogonal dimensions, each of which can vary independently. The features that Lukes identifies as "dimensions" seem more like tools in a toolkit or strategies in a repertoire: exercise control by doing X or Y or Z. So the language of dimensions seems inappropriate in this context. Steven Lukes provides three theories of power and evaluates them, and at the same time building on their scope and complexity. His third dimension of power does a good job of exploring and explaining the mechanisms behind complex and entrenched power. The other two dimensions account for weaker forms of power that can be exercised. Lukes third dimension of power can be applied in explaining corporate power in the modern world. Corporate power is built on an unquestioned and accepted ideology, founded on the premise that it is the natural way of being of as Margaret Thatcher voiced out, “There is no alternative”. Acceptance of the free market ideology inevitably means acceptance of its consequences; the status quo of our world today. Lukes’ theory also helps us to explain why despite the destruction that is done to the planet, and the disregard for humanity, that characterises the system, it has survived and still thrives. Lukes, then, very aptly describes this form of power as both “insidious” and “supreme” (Lukes, 1974: 23). Dimension 1, Quality: I’m inclined to break power down into four categories: coercive, manipulative, cooperative, or altruistic--with each of those categories having various tactical subdivisions.

In April 2006, Lukes married the political commentator and author Katha Pollitt, this being his third marriage. Lukes was previously a widower. [5] He has three children from his previous marriage to the English barrister Nina Stanger. [ citation needed] Academic interests [ edit ] Ideological power allows one to influence people's wishes and thoughts, even making them want things opposed to their own self-interest (e.g., causing women to support a patriarchal society). Lukes offers this third dimension as a "thoroughgoing critique" of the behavioural focus of the first two dimensions, [9] supplementing and correcting the shortcomings of previous views, allowing the analyst to include both latent and observable conflicts. Lukes claims that a full critique of power should include both subjective interests and those "real" interests held by those excluded by the political process. [10] Selected works [ edit ] Books [ edit ] G. W. Domhoff, “Who Really Ruled in Dahl’s New Haven?” 2005, at http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/local/new_haven.html.Even if the original author is correct that Lukes intends to lead us to believe that the three "dimensions" each contributes its own influence to an ultimately singular overall force or character of power, he may be right: it is not clear why the original poster thinks that decision-making, agenda-setting, and ideology are somehow intrinsically separate. It seems pretty plausible that they may be simultaneously relevant, even combinatory, in one arena of interactions where power is exercised. Non-decision-making power is that which sets the agenda in debates and makes certain issues (e.g., the merits of socialism in the United States) unacceptable for discussion in "legitimate" public forums. Adding this face gives a two-dimensional view of power allowing the analyst to examine both current and potential issues, expanding the focus on observable conflict to those types that might be observed overtly or covertly. [8] Three dimensional power works by means of a mechanism called adaptive policy formation (Barber, 2007). This refers to a human reaction of reconciling oneself to one’s misery, or altering one’s attitude to console oneself in difficult circumstances (Barber, 2007). In embracing a particular system, people accept its consequences and thus resort to cognitive dissonance reduction as a functional means of dealing with oppression (Barber, 2007). It is, however, ironic to note that the worse off a people are, the less they demand (Barber, 2007). Rather than acting in favour of their interests, they accept repression and adapt to oppressive conditions. An example of three dimensional power at play is Sen and Nussbaum’s analysis of Bengal, where of the millions affected by the post 1944 famine, it was primarily men who reported to relief centres for aid, despite both sexes being similarly affected (Sen, 2008). In accepting their ‘place’, of having limited rights in society, the women were not prepared to step forward and claim their rights to healthcare (Sen, 2008). Three dimensional power is the most supreme form of power as it gives rulers almost totalitarian power over the masses (Lukes, 1974: 23).

Highly theoretical but mostly accessible, the book asserts that the concept of power has to be looked at in 'three dimensions.' It is not enough to say that 'A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.' That is the one-dimensional view. Likewise, even the two-dimensional conception is inadequate: 'Power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A.' Rather, in 3-D, power can be described thus: 'A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants. Indeed, is it not the supreme exercise of power to get another or others to have the desires you want them to have - that is, to secure their compliance by controlling their thoughts and desires? One does not have to go to the lengths of talking about 'Brave New World,' or the world of B. F. Skinner, to see this: thought control takes many less total and more mundane forms, through the control of information, through the mass media and through the process of socialization.'I first read Lukes' work about two years ago after trying for years to make sense of the power dynamics in public education systems, and it was a source of extreme clarity, putting names & rationale to much of what I had observed. I don't think there is anything wrong with his work at all. It is possible that you fail to appreciate the value it brought in its time, and also, the value of his focus on the pure model. Knowledge advances through a combination of going wide and going deep, and those of us who are generalists rely more than we realize on the people who develop an obsessive focus on one thing and delve to its wellspring. This is what Lukes did - applying the model to the myriad of situations in which it applies is left to the rest of us to do in our time, whenever that may be. Lukes' main interests are political and social theory, the sociology of Durkheim and his followers, individualism, rationality, the category of the person, Marxism and ethics, sociology of morality and new forms of liberalism, varieties of conceptions of power, the notion of the "good society", rationality and relativism, moral conflict and politics. Language is the most important type of power. Mastering language is mastering the world. Language is power-creation, the inclusion or exclusion of certain words the most powerful act in politics.