Typologies

Stephen Lukes three dimensions of power

From Stephen Lukes at http://www.gdnet.org/middle.php?oid=603

"In his seminal book, Lukes outlines three dimensions of power. The first dimension is the power of A to influence the behaviour of B. This exercise of power is observable and is tied to public conflicts over interests. It is played out in public decision-making processes. Dahl's classical study, 'Who Governs?', defines power in this way.

The second dimension is the power of A to define the agenda, and thus to prevent B from voicing her/his interests in the public negotiation and decision-making process. Potential issues and conflicts are not brought into the open, to the benefit of A and to the detriment of B. This exercise of power can be both overt and covert.

The third dimension is the power of A to define what counts as a grievance, and to mould B's perceptions and preferences in such a way that B accepts that she/he does not have any significant grievances. The power to shape people's thoughts and desires is the most effective kind of power, since it pre-empts conflict and even pre-empts an awareness of possible conflicts. This dimension of power can be played out for example in processes of socialisation, the control of information, and the control of the mass media." (http://www.gdnet.org/middle.php?oid=603)

Domination vs. transformative power

From a seminar on networked politics at http://www.networked-politics.info/research-lines/political-parties-and-representation-systems

"The importance of distinguishing two senses of power:

Power 1: as transformative capacity

Power 2: as domination, as involving an asymmetry between those with power and those over whom power is exercised.

The recent reassertion of power as transformative capacity first by the feminist and also radical trade union student and community movements of the late ’60s and ’70s and more recently by the global justice movement of the late ’90s underpins and sustains a far wider understanding of the scope of politics beyond the traditional focus on state, government and legislation. This recognition of the importance of power as trans- formative capacity and an associated enlargement of the definition of politics, also lays the basis for rethinking representation. It suggests a direction of strategic thinking about social transformation which goes beyond the coun- ter position of movement forms of democracy on the one hand, and representation – as “making present” – on the other. It implies the need to inquire into forms, conditions and limits on representation as a way of “making present” within the political system, movements and struggles and the sources of transformative capacity that they contain or indicate.

This implies that rethinking political organisation must be guided by investigating and understanding the present sources of transformative capacity; and this in turn re- quires recognition of the third point of the search 3. The multiplicity of levels of creative human activity – all of which are potential locations of transformative capacities.

The multiplicity of levels of creative human activity – all of which are potential locations of transformative capacities.

This involves an understanding of social reality as consist- ing of at least four levels: • interactions/relationship between people; • enduring social structures that pre-exist particular indi- viduals and relationships; • the formation and character of human personality and consciousness; • transactions and relations with nature.

Social movements and struggles involve all these levels of social being but their importance will vary from case to case, as will the appropriate forms of political organisation.

Just to list these indicates the dramatic enlargement of politics which flows from a recognition of power as trans- formative capacity and also points to the importance of a multiplicity of autonomous levels to politics. It also indi- cates the complexity of giving organisational reality to the idea of representation as “making present” autonomous forces for democratic transformation. The other side of this enlargement of politics and recogni- tion of the different levels at which transformative activity takes place is the four point of the search: 4. A radical development in our understanding of the mechanism of social change.

We are working with a knowledge of open systems, an incomplete knowledge; we are increasingly aware of knowledge as tacit, practical and experiential as well as scientific.

These understandings of knowledge are closely associated with the understanding of power as transformative capac- ity and with the diffusion of efforts at social change. The implications for political organisation point towards an em- phasis on horizontal sharing and exchanging of knowledge; co-operative attempts to build a common memory; the self-consciousness of action and struggle as also an ex- periment and therefore the importance of ensuring spaces for reflection, debate and synthesis." (http://www.networked-politics.info/research-lines/political-parties-and-representation-systems)

Freedom or Power?

From Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard M. Stallman at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html

Freedom is being able to make decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to uphold real freedom.

Proprietary software is an exercise of power. Copyright law today grants software developers that power, so they and only they choose the rules to impose on everyone else—a relatively few people make the basic software decisions for everyone, typically by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.

Discussion

Kinds of Power

More Information

From the P2P Manuscript

Books to Read

A Theory of Power Jeff Vail. 2004
Protocol. Alexander Galloway.
Stephen Lukes. Power: A Radical View. Macmillan, 1974

Power

Contents