This unit turns our attention to the notion of power as a 'capacity'. From this lens, power is understood not as a location or position or title but rather as a capacity. The unit will be guided by Lukes' (1974, 2005) "Power a Radical View" an important contribution to conversation on power starting in the second half of the twentieth century. Just as Mills suggested in "The Power Elite" that power often need not be exercised by those who 'have' it, Lukes defines power as "an ability or capacity of an agent or agents, which they may or may not exercise" (Lukes, 2005, p. 63). The original (1974) version of this text, was a contribution to an ongoing debate in (mostly American) academic circles about what power was and how it operated (and thus how it might be studied). Lukes' take on power was 'radical' because it rejected the mainstream (pluralist) views of power that reduced power to what he called 'one dimension' thus reducing power and the study of power to observable, overt instances of decision-making. Lukes asserts that while this is one valuable approach to the study of power that has methodological rigour, it cannot account for all forms/expressions of power. Most notably, it cannot account for the power of (1) non decision-making and (2) covert conflicts. According to Lukes, liberal theories of power attempted to redress this issue and have resulted in an important but still lacking view of power. accordingly, Lukes proposed a three-dimensional view of power that accounts for (1) agenda setting (not just decision making) and its relationship with the articulation of policy issues, (2) latent conflicts (versus just overt and covert) and (3) real (versus perceived) interests. The updated (2005) edition, pulls in contemporary (post 1970s) theories of power as they help him to re/articulate re/affirm his proposed view of power and the study of power as necessarily 'three dimensional.'In order to defend his 'three dimensional' view of power, Lukes offers a rich exploration of the concept and its various articulations across disciplines and time, as well as, the important, interdisciplinary debates surrounding its use and study. In this way, "Power: A Radical View" is essential (methodological, conceptual, historical) read for any scholar of power. What is more, Lukes 'treatise' on power offers an important contribution to the debate (also addressed in Mills' work) on the proper place of methodology in academic inquiry. See Sils, "Problems Chasing Methods or Methods Chasing Problems..."for more on this topic.
 |
- How do you use the term power in different aspects of your life?
- Which view--one, two or three-dimensional--of power most aligns with how you use the term?
- How do politicians and policy-makers use the term power? Do they even use the term? If not, which terms do they use instead to describe the capacity to influence? Which dimension is most evident in their discourse and policy documents?
- Which dimension of power is the mainstream media most concerned with?
- Which dimension of power is most represented by the readings, theories and methodologies in your field of study? In what ways might this lead to what Kenneth Burke (guided by the thought of John Dewey, Robert K. Merton and Therstein Veblen) would call 'occupational psychosis' (see: trained incapacity)?
- Are you more interested in overt or latent power? Why?
Extentions: The notion of capacity (capability) is of course not limited to the disputes of political scientists, it is also very important in the influential works of both economist, Amarta Sen, and political philosopher, Martha Nussbaum who have used Sen's 'capability approach' to both contest dominant models of power/wealth/capital distribution and explore new terrains for examining the distribution of power (economic and political). See the IEP's summary here.