Lukes Three Dimensions of Power Essay Example For Students

Lukes Three Dimensions of Power Essay Lukes Three Dimensions of PowerPower serves to create power. Powerlessness serves to re-enforcepowerlessness(Gaventa,1980:256). Such is the essence of the on goingrelationship between the Powerful and the Powerless of the Appalachian Valleywhere acquiescence of the repressed has become not only common practice but away of life and a means of survival. In his novel Power and Powerlessness, JohnGaventa examines the oppressive and desperate situation of the Appalachian coalminers under the autocratic power of absentee land-owners, local elites, andcorrupt union leaders. His analyses is based on Lukes three-dimensionalunderstanding of power from his book Power: A Radical View. Gaventa applies thethree notions of power to the politics of inequalities in the Appalachian Valleyand, while demonstrating the inadequacies of the first or pluralist approachand the merits of the second and particularly the third dimensions, asserts thatthe interrelationship and reinforcing affect of all three dim ensions isnecessary for an in depth understanding of the total impact of power upon theactions or inactions and conceptions of the powerless(Gaventa:256)This essay will examine Lukes three power dimensions and theirapplicability to Gaventas account of the inequities found in the valleys of theCumberland Mountains. Reasons for the mountain peoples submission and non-participation will be recognized and their nexus with the power relationshipestablished. In this way, Gaventas dissatisfaction with the pluralist approachwill be justified and the emphatic ability of the other two dimensions towithhold issues and shape behaviour will be verified as principal agents ofPower and Powerlessness. The one dimensional view of power is often called the pluralistapproach and emphasizes the exercise of power through decision making andobservable behaviour. Robert Dahl, a major proponent of this view, definespower as occurring in a situation where A has power over B to the extent he canget B to do something that B would not otherwise do(Dahl as cited in Lukes,1974:11). As power therefore is defined in terms of B and the extent to whichA prevails is determined by its higher ratio of successes and defeats over B. Observable behaviour then becomes a key factor in the pluralist approachto power. Dahls Who Governs? expresses the pluralist belief that thepolitical arena is an open system where everyone may participate and expressgrievances which in turn lead to decision making. Those who proposealternatives and initiate issues which contribute to the decision making processare demonstrating observable influence and control over those who failed alltogether to express any interest in the political process. The Pluralist approach assumes that in an open system, all people, notjust the elite, would participate in decision making if they felt stronglyenough about an issue and wanted their values to be expressed and represented. Non-participation therefore is thought to express a lack of grievances and aconsensus with the way the leaders are already handling the system. Politicalinaction is not a problem within the one-dimensional system, it merely reflectsapathy of ordinary citizens with little interest or knowledge for politicalmatters, and their acceptance of the existing system which they see as rewardingmutual benefits to society. While politics is primarily an elite concern to the pluralist, ordinarypeople can have a say if they become organized, and everyone has indirectinfluence through the right to the franchise in the electoral process. Pluralism recognizes a heterogeneous society composed of people belonging tovarious groups with differing and competing interests. Conflict is thereforealso recognized as not only an expected result but as a necessary instrumentwhich enables the determination of a ruling class in terms of who the winner is. Dahl,(as cited in Lukes,1974:18) states:Who prevails in decision-making seems the best way to determine which individual and groups havemore power in social life because direct conflictbetween actors presents a situation most approximatingan experimental test of their capacities to affect outcome. Both Lukes and Gaventa put forward the notion that restricting youranalyses of a power situation to the one dimensional model can skew yourconclusions. If you limit yourself to this approach your study will be impairedby a pluralistic biased view of power. Where the first dimension sees power inits manifest functions of decision making over key issues raising observableconflict due to policies raised through political participation, it ignores theunobservable mechanisms of power that are sometimes just as or even moreimportant. Many times power is exercised to prevent an issue from being raised andto discourage participation in the political arena. Potential issues andgrievances are therefore not voiced and to assume this means that they do notexist would be an outright deviation from fact. By restricting analyses to whatis expressed and to observable behaviour and overt conflict only, you miss anypreference not expressed because of fear of sanctions, manipulation, coercionand force. This critique of the behaviourial focus and the recognition ofunobservable factors of power is discussed in the two-dimensional view of powerdeveloped by Bachrach and Baratz by which power is exercised not just uponparticipants within the decision making process but also towards the exclusionof certain participants and issues altogether(Schattsneider, as cited inLukes,1974:16). This theory proposes that political organizations develop amobilization of bias in favour of the exploitation of certain kinds ofconflict and the suppression of others some issues are organized in whileothers are organized out(Ibid.,16). The first dimension claims there is an open system and althoughadmitting that political resources are not distributed equally, they are alsonot centralized in one groups hands. Everyone has the opportunity to use otherresources and be heard. The second approach however, sees a monopolistic systemof inequalities created and maintained by the dominant power. The elite havethe means and the political resources to prevent political action that would notbenefit themselves and to push forward those that would. The Elite thereforedetermine the agenda of both decision making and non-decision making and in sodoing establish their dominance and the subordinance and compliance of those onthe bottom of the power hierarchy. Although the two dimensional approach to power delves deeper than thefirst into the nature of power and powerlessness by involving analyses ofpotential issues, grievances, nondecision-making and non-participation, BothLukes and Gaventa find that it is on the same level as the first dimension inthat it also emphasizes observable conflict only.Of course it is true thatthe first does stress only overt while the second stresses both overt and/orcovert conflict. Nonetheless, an affinity between the two results in theirbelief that where there is conflict, there is an element of power in decisionmaking and, for the second dimension, in nondecision-making. Barach and Baratz(as cited in Lukes,1974:19) states that if there is no conflict, overt orcovert, the presumption must be that there is consensus on the prevailingallocation of values, in which case nondecision-making is impossible. Here,there is obviously no consideration of latent conflict or attention as to howinterests not consciously articulated may fit into the power relationship. Lukes identifies manipulation and authority as two forms of power whichdo not necessarily involve evident conflict. People abide by the power ofauthority because they either respect or accept its legitimacy. Compliance tothe power of manipulation often goes unrecognized by the conformer because focusis placed on irrelevant matters and the key aim is downplayed. In neither isthere observable (overt or covert) conflict, but latent conflict occurs becausethe individual may be agreeing to something contrary to their interests withouteven knowing. The three dimensional view of power then, criticizes the behaviourialfocus of the first two dimensions and adopts the consideration of hidden socialforces and conflict which exercise influence by shaping the consciousness of theindividual or organization. This view strays from the others in that it focusesnot only on decisions and nondecisions but on other ways to control thepolitical agenda which are not made deliberately by the choice of individuals orgroups. The third mechanism of power seeks to identify the means through whichpower influences, shapes or determines conceptions of necessities, possibilities,and strategies of challenge in situation of conflict(Gaventa,1980:15). Inother words, it involves specifying how A gets B to believe and choose to act ina way that reinforces the bias of the system, advancing the cause of A andimpairing that of B, usually in the form of compliance. Such processes can take place in a direct and intended way through mediaand communication. A takes control of the information channels and B issocialized into accepting, believing and even supporting the political notionsinstilled by A. The shaping of individuals conceptions can also take placeindirectly or even unintentionally through ones membership in a social structure. Patterns of behaviour, norms and accepted standards apparent in the action andinaction of the group are automatically adopted. Social legitimations aredeveloped around the dominant, and instilled as beliefs or roles in thedominated (Gaventa,1980:15). Passive acceptance of situations or circumstances that are in conflictwith ones interests occur even when the subordinated realise they are beingrepressed. They submit quietly because of fear of sanctions but also becausethey have gone through a psychological adaptation to the state of being withoutpower (Gaventa:16). They recognize their powerlessness and see no possibilityto reverse it and therefore submit to their hopeless situation with lethargicacceptance. Iliad Aias EssayWithin the Appalachian area itself there developed a local elite who rankednext in the class hierarchy. They were the men of wealth, and fine backgrounds,and politics was not new for them(Gaventa,1980:59). They were usually those inpositions of political leadership where they could benefit the company andpromote its best interests. Next were a class of small entrepreneurs andprofessionals who were attracted to the booming city by its promising commercialfuture. The bottom of the hierarchy consisted of labourers, miners and othermanual labour workers. This class was composed mainly of those who wereoriginally from the region and had come from a rural background, while theupper classes had been derived primarily of those attracted to the areabecause of its economic potential. Mobility was of a horizontal nature, thecoming together in one area of various representatives of pre-existing stratafrom other areas(Gaventa,1980:57). The workers were therefore destined to poverty and inequality, but alsohad to endure such things as poor and even dangerous working conditions with fewhealth benefits and little compensation. And one cannot forget the ongoingdemise of their valley as entire mountain sides were stripped away and the airand water were blackened with millions of tiny coal particles. Why then, in this state of economic, social and even environmentaldepravation did the people not cry out with enough strength to be heard? Whilenearby mining communities experiencing similar conditions responded withmilitant, collective organizations, Middlesborough expressed grievances butnever took the form of organized action or went as far as creating aconsciousness of the situation. The first, second and third dimensions of powerwould give different reasons for this in answering how the Association was ableto maintain the new order they had created and the quiescence of a peopleamongst their condition of poverty and inequality. The pluralist approach would recommend using the democratic politicalprocess of the electoral system in determining the legitimacy of those in powerand of their policies and practices. If the leaders who have been elected bythe people and for the people do not voice concerns about the existing system orthe desire for change, it must be assumed that there were no concerns butinstead an overall approval of the status quo. The people of Middlesborough hada choice between local and Company candidates and with few exceptionscontinued to place their support in the latter. Even within their own unionswhere leadership had become increasingly dictatorial and Company biased, theworkers remained loyal to the existing leaders and opposed the reform movement. By considering only the face value of voting practices, one would haveto agree that the Appalachian miners appear to be in accordance with themanagement of the existing system and their place within it. The seconddimension of power would disagree, however, and would explain the maintenance ofthe system and the compliance of the people as a result of the Companys controlover the political apparatus. The longstanding political science maxim that low socio-economic status,poor education and lack of information, translate into low politicalparticipation would be admissible in the second dimensional view. The elitemade up a closely-knit group of political leaders in Appalachia who madedecisions to advance their causes more than those of the Mountaineers. Therewas little regard for what law there was and money ruled theday(Gaventa,1980:59). This could help explain why Acts were passed to protectthe rights of the Company while demands for miners rights rarely even made it tothe courthouse. This supports the view that non-participation was not theresult of apathy but of a caste system, and that non-issues did not mean lack ofgrievances but lack of opportunity to voice them. This does not, however, support the documented cases where workersthemselves did participate, although minimally, and wilfully voted forcandidates who were backers of the Company. This discrepancy can, nevertheless,be explained with Bachrach and Baratzs use of the term power in its sense asthe securing of compliance through the threat of sanctions(Lukes,1974:17). Fear is thus presented as reason enough for the mountaineers to express supportin the form of a vote, even though it is not an accurate portrayal of theirposition. Traditional political dominance in the Clearfork Valley belonged to agroup of local landowners called The Family who maintained their powerposition by serving as mediators between the Company and community gainingfurther power as brokers of favours concerning jobs or hometenure(Gaventa,1980:143). The Family was associated with Company housing,welfare and employment, and in order to receive any benefits, one had to be intheir good graces. Even now, people say those who live in company housing orwork in mines on company land are expected to vote in the Familysfavour(Gaventa,1982:143). As brokers of benefits, they were also capable of taking them away andimposing sanctions. Many, for example, would not spend their food stampsanywhere but the Company store where prices were higher, with the fear that theywould lose their welfare or even be evicted as a consequence. The people weretherefore quite aware that by accommodating the Company leaders with theirsupport, they stood a chance at being granted certain benefits. Conversely, ifone were to advance the cause of the reform movement and upset the system, lifecould be made very difficult for them. While the benefits of the status quoare high for the powerful, the costs of challenge are potentially higher for thepowerless (Gaventa, 1980: 145). Lukes second dimension of power explains how the Association was able tomaintain its dominance and the quiescence of the people in terms of creating apolitical apparatus to organize certain issues and participants in, and othersout, as well as impose recognizable sanctions. Further analyses, however, wouldrequire a look at the less obvious controls which stemmed from the shaping andinstilling of an ideological apparatus in support of the Company among theordinary citizens. This would describe Lukes third dimension where power is executed in amore subtle way. It is one which shapes the outcome of choice while allowingthe chooser to believe that, in fact, a choice has been made(Gaventa,1980:63). The Mountaineers non-challenge then, although appearing to be a freely chosenstate of quiescence was actually more of an imposed choice. By both deliberateand unintentional means, the consciousness of the people was slanted to adoptthe newly created Industrial ideology. Gaventa identifies four observable waysthat the Association was able to maintain their hegemony. Conditioning the peoples wants involved first a perversion ofinformation which exaggerated benefits of the industrial order and downplayedits oppressive effects upon them. The mountain valley had drawn in millions ofdollars, attracted all kinds of investors, and created hundreds of jobs. Inaddition to this it also became a vacation ground for thewealthy(Gaventa,1980:63) where luxurious hotels were built and a new leisureclass developed. This lifestyle contrasted drastically with that of the labourers livingin dilapidated shacks, yet a working class consciousness failed to develop. This is because an equal opportunity ethic was emphasized, stressing the beliefthat by hard work these benefits were attainable by all. Social stratificationwas therefore accepted by most workers and instead of participating equally,they chose to splurge what little money they had on alcohol which was the onlyway they knew to replicate the pattern (of enjoyment of luxuries) in a lesserstyle(Gaventa,1980:65). The appeal of the new industrial orderand its economic benefits was enhanced by the debasement of the mountaineerstraditional way of life and culture. The two were in direct contrast so theglorification of the first meant the degradation of the other. The old culturewas criticized as a dirty, primitive and meagre way of life while the new orderwas proclaimed for its virtues of civilization and progress. Miners weretherefore socialized to strive for membership under the new order and to beashamed of the old. Imposing values took on a third form in the process of changing names oftowns, schools and other cultural establishments. Names that had been familiarto the old system were changed to those derived from the new. Only Companyworkplaces and mines kept their local names. In this way, ties to the past weresevered and a clear path for a new society was created. Symbols play animportant part in the way people interpret their society. By manipulatinglinguistic symbols the Association was shaping the societal consciousness. Bythe imposition of one identity over another in the cultural arena, and byallowing names to lend the appearance of local possession in the workplace arena(where there was none at all) the development of a counter-hegemony was madeless likely(Gaventa,1980:67). The creation of a set of controls in the form of political andideological constructs resulted in a shaping and influencing away from (themountaineers) stock to participation in the ways and values of the neworder(Gaventa,1980:68). Conformity to the extent where contradictions ofconscience go unnoticed because workers are no longer certain of theirorientation occurred repeatedly and was the main reason challenge was rare. It must be noted, however, that the workers of Middlesborough were notcompletely inact