A Radical View – Steven Lukes (Dimensions of Power
A general definition of power is ‘the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of event’, however in a book, ‘A Radical View’, published in 1974, Steven Lukes argues the idea that there is actually three dimensions of power, therefore distinguishing between his idea of power and Robert Dahls’s interpretation on power. The three dimensions of power include ‘decision power and issue method’, non-decision making and agenda setting and manipulating the view of others in addition to the system power. Lukes interpretation of power became a significantly huge focus point when deliberating the realism of power. This essay will explore each dimension of power in fine detail and also how each of these concepts help us to examine power in contemporary societies through the use current examples.
According to Lukes, the first dimension of power is the traditional pluralist approach which illustrates power through the act of decision making. Pluralists argue that although certain groups might exercise power in specific areas, no single group will dominate across the range of policy-making. In 1961 Robert Dahl proposed the idea that ‘A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do’. Therefore the individual who composes and implements decisions that influence others, is the person who holds the power. For example, someone (A) telling a young innocent child (B) to rob a shop and them doing it, so therefore A has the power. This was an extension from what Weber classified power as in 1917, ‘power is the potential a person or group has to realise their own will in a social action even against the resistance of others’. Lukes criticises Weber’s interpretation of power by explaining that Weber only looks at the first face of power despite there being a further two dimensions according to Luke.
In addition, pluralists argue that the exercise of power is empirically observable meaning researchers can examine specific decisions and analyse the factors which influenced the policy-making process. An example of this type of dimension is the Scottish referendum in September 2014, where the decision was effected by individual votes. However people’s opinions and votes may have been influenced by factors such as media coverage which could have altered the ways in which that individual may have voted, meaning they could have voted in a way in which they would not normally. A further example of decision power is the voting power in committees or chambers. Who gains most of the power depends on the votes held by each member or block of members. Voting power often differs from the number of votes held therefore you don’t need the majority of votes to have majority of power. Eg Shapely-Shubik Power index.
Lukes second dimension of power is the modified pluralist approach in terms of non-decision making and agenda setting. This is therefore an expansion of Lukes first face of power, decision making, which evidently emphasises the element of power also in non-decision making. In 1963 Bachrach and Braratz defined power as ‘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’. This definition suggests that some groups are powerful enough to keep damaging issues off the political agenda, therefore we also have to consider ‘non decision-making’ where decisions which could have been taken but were never discussed.
An explanation of non-decision making is ‘law of anticipated reactions’ whereby they can control the approach of decision-making themselves. This therefore means businesses do not have to take any industrial or forceful action in order for their interests to be heard. This is due to the fact that governments specifically acknowledge their opinions as they recognise the impact that businesses could have.
In addition, the notion of agenda setting is that those who have the power to set agendas are those who can negotiate what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to be conferred with others. It can be argued that individuals have real power if they agenda set as they are able to gain overall control of the situation. This is due to the fact that people obey individuals in authoritarian positions due to legitimacy or respect as they may be punish if they disobey. Therefore, participation from individuals can be low as their interests and opinions could easily be excluded. For example, the chairman in a meeting has power to decide what is discussed and does not need to worry about the risk of being confronted as he has the authority to change the topic of deliberation. In addition, agenda can be restrained by making something that is potentially at the forefront of discussion, a non-issue. Therefore power can be demonstrated through the act of preventing issues from invading discussions.
The third dimension of power is distinctive compare to the first two faces of power in that it illustrates the idea that power can manipulate the views of others. This therefore highlights the fact that people may be convinced by others that they want something that they do not actually want, however they have been influenced. A criticism of the pluralist approach here is that they assume that individual’s ideas and opinions are in their interests. A distinctive characteristic that separates Lukes second and third dimension is the way in which they examine behaviour as a signal of power. In 2005 Steven Luke defined the ‘Third Dimension of Power’ as ‘A might 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’. This key distinction is illustrated in the second dimension of power where ‘Bs’ capacity for participation decreases whereas in the third dimension it can be said that ‘B’ is almost defenceless. While pluralists assume that people who have an interest in a decision will have the opportunity to make their views heard, the ‘Third Dimension of Power’ argues that powerful groups can avert their potential opponents from understanding where their true interests lie. This can also establish a false sense of apprehension of what people would actually like. This is because the working class will be persuaded that what the class who have the higher authority want is what they want too. This can be applied in examining corporate power in contemporary societies as it is constructed on an approved ideology.
Steven Lukes specific illustration on how A affects or influences B is key to his interpretation of each of his three dimensions of power. Each dimension has a different viewpoint on the way A affects B, through decision-making, through agenda setting and through the use of influence by others. In particular ‘The Third Dimension’ clearly analyses and clarifies the structure behind established power. Lukes three dimensions of power can be applied in examining powers in contemporary societies. In addition, his theory helps us to clarify that although there is destructiveness in the world, the planet remains spinning.