Power: A Radical View

Lukes attempts to explain the concept of power in a much broader sense and how to explain
it empirically. Power for him is a multi-dimensional social factor. It is seen as some kind of
imposition whereby the subjects are subjected to some kind of constraints.
In a social setting with two social actors A and B, A exercises power over B when A affects B
in a manner contrary to B’s interest.
Lukes outlines three faces of power to explain it in a radical view. Also power can exercised
in three ways- a. Decision making b. Non decision making c. Ideological power
The three fold classification provided by Lukes-

 One-dimensional view(Pluralist view)

One-Dimensional view of Power-

 Main proponent- Robert Dahl. Dahl explains power in his work ‘The Concept of
Power’ using the pluralist tradition of American Democratic theory. In this book power
is seen as a behavioural attribute. Power as a behavioural attribute applies to an
individual in a way that they are able to alter the behaviour of others in the decision
making process.
 ‘A has power over B to an extent that he can do B to do something which B wouldn’t
do otherwise’. This statement carries two ideas- (a) A has power, a capacity which B
lacks. (b) It involves a successful attempt by A whereby A makes B to do something
which otherwise B wouldn’t have done.
 This form of power is characterised as something visible, transparent and easily
measured. This system of power is seen among ruling elites and is also called the
open face of power.
 Another work by Dahl- ‘Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American city’.
Here he looks at power as something intentional and active situation of conflict of
interests between political groups. Power consists in defeating the opponent’s
preferences.
 One-dimensional view of power focuses on- behaviour; decision making; (key)issues,
observable(overt) conflict; (subjective) interests, seen as policy preferences or
grievances.
Two-Dimensional view of Power-

 Criticism of the one-dimensional view of power. Rejects power as just confined to the
decision-making process.
 Main proponents of this view are- Bachrach and Baratz.
 Power is examined both at the decision-making and non-decision making levels.
Power is not about decision-making but also reducing choices over which decisions
can be taken. It is also known as the secretive face of power.
 Decision is designed to avoid the values and interests contrary to those of the
decision makers. In this view the potential issues are prevented from becoming real
 issues. A devotes his energy to create and reinforce certain political and social
values, which limit the scope of political processes. Only the issues that are less
harmful to A are considered. B is prevented from bringing to the fore any issue that
might pose any threat to A’s set of preferences.
 Lukes says that power can be exercised by shaping the cognition and perceptions of
people in such a way that they can’t think of any alternative view. The perception of
the powerful group is viewed as the status quo.
 Power is exercised at two levels- decision-making and agenda setting.
 Use of power in two distinct ways-
 The use of power in a general way- all forms of successful control of A over B.
 Looks at behaviour, decision-making, control over shaping or setting of political
agendas. Labelled as able to seek compliance through a set of sanctions. This
typology of power embraces the processes through which compliance is achieved-
cohesion, manipulation, influence, authority.
 The two-dimensional view of power focuses on- decision-making and non-decision
making; issues and potential issues; observable (overt or covert) conflict; (subjective)
interests, seen as policy preferences or grievances.
Third-Dimensional view of Power

 It is associated with the works of Lukes. This view is similar to the Marxist view of
ideological power. It is concerned with manipulation.
 This view of power in addition to looking at power at the decision-making and agenda
setting levels, also looks at how preferences can be set. This form of power is best
witnessed in civil societies.
 Submits that sometimes people willingly and voluntarily behave in ways that appears
contrary to their own interests. It acknowledges a set of ways in which the powerful
transform the powerless in a way that the powerless behaves in accordance to the
wishes of the powerful.
 The capitalists manipulate the interests of the working class by distorting their
ideology. The working class now starts to believe that capitalism is in their own
interest and is better than communism. People accept the ideology of the ruling class
as their own.
 Power is able to exercise itself by avoiding conflicts by manipulating interests. This
view of power also focuses on the latent conflicts.
 The third-dimensional view of power focuses on – decision-making and control over
political agenda (not necessarily through decisions); issues and potential issues;
observable and latent conflict; subjective and real interests.

According to Lukes, in the third-dimensional view of power, potential issues are kept out of
politics whether through individual decisions or through social forces and institutional
practices. He introduces and stresses on the concept of latent conflict, where those who are
subjected to power don’t express their grievances. According to him this form of conflict is
difficult to study because here power is hidden and can’t be viewed empirically.
The objection to the third-dimensional view is that how you study something which is not
open to observation. The problem is how to justify our claim that we would have thought and
acted differently (whether B has different interests as against A and would have acted
differently if A wasn’t there cannot be justified). Also it is difficult to know exactly what
strategies A uses to manipulate B (how does one identify the process and mechanisms of
alleged exercise of power?).
The third dimension of power presents three features which makes it difficult to study:
● Exercise of power may be unconscious.
● Exercise of power may involve inaction rather than observable action.
● Power may be exercised by a collectivity (groups and institutions).
If we want to identify a given process as an act influenced by the exercise of power, we have
to assume that within that process lies the possibility to act differently.
After outlining the three views of power, Lukes refers to the works of Talcott Parsons and
Harrah Arendt.
First, Lukes refers to the concept of power by Talcott Parsons. Parsons agrees with the
concept of power as an ability to get things done in the presence of resistance. Parsons'
conceptualization of power ties it to authority, consensus, and pursuit of collective goals. The
conceptualization of power no way considers it to be associated with cohesion or force. He
basically sees that power reinforces his theory of social integration as based on consensus.
Power is seen in a positive light. He sees power not as a threat to consensus but rather
which reinforces social integration.

According to Harrah Arendt, power is not just the ability to act but to act in a concert manner.
It belongs to the group. Power is all about the collectivity. When we say someone is in
power- he is actually empowered by a collectivity to act in their names.

All political institutions are manifestations and maintenance of power. They perish as soon
as living power ceases to uphold them. According to Arendt, power is disseminated from
command, obedience and relationship. It derives its legitimacy from the initial getting
together rather than any action that follows. It is removed from violence.

Matthew Crenson’s ‘The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decision making in the
Cities’ explains power relations by explaining political inactivity.

The theoretical framework of the book can be seen as lying on the borderline of the two-
dimensional and three-dimensional views of power. It marks a real theoretical advance in the
empirical study of power relations. It attempts to find a way to explain ‘things that do not
happen’, on the assumption that ‘the proper object of investigation is not political activity but
political inactivity.

Crenson provides a detailed study of two neighbouring cities in Indiana, both equally polluted
and with similar populations, one of which, East Chicago, took action to clear its air in 1949,
while there was no action taken at Gary till 1962.

Gary is a one-company town dominated by US Steel, with its strong party organisation,
whereas East Chicago has a number of steel companies with no strong party organisations
when it passed its air pollution control ordinance.

US Steel, which had built Gary and was responsible for its prosperity, for a long time
effectively prevented the issue from even being raised, thwarted attempts to raise the issue
and influenced the content of the anti-pollution ordinance finally enacted. Moreover it did all
this without acting or entering into the political arena and thus defied the pluralist dictum that
political power belongs to political actors. US Steel, Crenson argues, exercised influence
from points outside the range of observable political behaviour. He argues against the
pluralists, that political issues tend to be interconnected.

Political parties and organisations decide to act on issues depending on their degree of
public appeal. An issue like air pollution has a weak support base since its benefits are
diffuse. An economically dominant non-political group could manipulate the decision-making
process through political inaction.

His general case is that there are politically imposed limitations upon the scope of decision-
making such that decision-making activity is channelled and directed by the process of non-
decision making.