State of the Art: Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power (original) (raw)
Related papers
Review.Power: A Radical View by Steven Lukes
In 1974 Steven Lukes published Power: A radical View. Its re-issue in 2005 with the addition of two new essays is much to be welcomed. In this new edition the author reproduces the original text and adds two new chapters in which he clarifies and expands his view of power by acknowledging some of the mistakes and inadequacies of the original version.
Rather than offering a survey of different conceptualizations of power, which have been well discussed elsewhere, the chapter shows the crucial importance of conceptual analysis both for the critique and development of theory and as an empirical analysis of the performance nature of power analysis. In doing so, the discussion points to the analytical benefits and limits of taking a concept’s theoretical and political contexts seriously. The chapter proceeds in three parts. The first section will tackle how to understand or define a concept. Far from being a purely semantic exercise or a simple instrumental step in the operationalization of variables, I look at concepts from their context-specific usage, including our theoretical languages. Applied to the concept of power, I look at how the two overarching domains of power analysis, political theory and explanatory theory, can help us map the different concepts of the power family. The second section looks at the role the concept of power plays in our theoretical languages and shows how conceptual analysis can be used for the analysis and critique of theories. It does so by addressing a paradox. On the one hand, concepts derive their specific meaning from the theoretical and meta-theoretical context in which they are embedded. On the other hand, meanings travel across the multitude of theoretical contexts. This can produce situations in which a concept considered central is, however, not best served by keeping it within the theoretical context in which it is predominantly applied. Also, importing conceptualizations from other theoretical contexts may not work because it produces contradictions within receiving theoretical contexts. Applied to the concept of power, I will use the mapping of power concepts of the first section for a theoretical critique of realism, a theory that is often identified with the analysis of power. The third and final section focuses on the role of power in political discourse(s) and shows how the concept of power becomes itself the object of empirical analysis. This is a central issue for conceptual history in its different forms, but also for performative analyses of discursive practices, and hence the ‘political (critical) approach’ outlined in the introduction to this volume. . Power is performative in that it mobilizes ideas of agency and responsibility. It politicizes issues, since action and change are now deemed possible. Moreover, given that we have no objective measure of power, but practitioners need to assume one to attribute status and recognition, a part of international politics can be understood as the ongoing negotiation about who has the right to define and what is part of the definition of power. This struggle over the ‘right’ definition of power, as used by practitioners, is part and parcel of power politics.
Conceptions of Power in Political Science
The concept of power has long been argued within the academic community with many academics not agreeing to any one interpretation or theory. With such varying opinions and ideas it is difficult for a political scientist to decide on which conception of power it most useful to use. By exploring the varying theories and interpretations of power offered by Weber, Lukes, Bachrach and Baratz as well as other prominent academics; the conception of power most suited for political science will be determined, with a focus on western politics. The main problem which is encountered when attempting to determine the type of power that is best suited to the field of political science resides in the varying definitions of power and how they can be applied to the large field of political studies. To show how agenda setting is the most effective form of power, due to the sway it can create, to be used when studying political science. There will be a focus on western governments as examples to show that agenda setting has the ability to influence other factors within politics. This ability to influence another by exercising power over another is the first of Lukes’s concepts of power (Plaw 2007, 489 - 490) and leads into the concept of authority which is vital in explaining legitimate power. Legitimate authority as explained by Weber is given to many governments, primarily western ones, also known as rational legal authority (see Uphoff 1989) and has a direct relationship with power and how it is used to control not only a nation state but the people within the state. In summary the power of agenda setting in political science is most useful as it is present in many forms of power presented by prominent academics and is able to yield the desired outcome consistently.
Power as a capacity for action and social participation
Power is often associated with struggles for power, and therefore with fair competition at best, domination at worst. However, since the ways we think and talk about a subject influence the ways we act in relation to it, it is important to recognize how this conceptualization of power blurs an important mutualistic dimension of power that plays an important role in the conduct of our everyday lives, and needs to play an even more significant role in a still more complex and globalized world. Starting from a notion of power as a capacity for action, this paper attempts to outline an alternative vocabulary for thinking about power. The vocabulary is not meant to replace, but rather situate the adversarial conception of power within a broader framework, encompassing both ‘power over’ and ‘power with’ relations. The framework draws on different inspirations but mainly on German–Danish critical psychology.