Reflections on the 3 Dimensions of Power

Power: A Radical View. The word radical may have been appropriate in describing Lukes’ view in 1974 but in modern society I believe Lukes' view, although at times restrictive in defining a clear structure of power, can be considered accurate. Lukes identifies that power is exercised by the powerful, shaping influencing and determining the wants of the complier. I believe this relates to the Marxist theory of false consciousness in that as our wants are pre determined for us we are unable to see things as they really are.

Lorenzi also determines that ‘Lukes introduces and stresses the importance of Latent conflict’ (Lorenzi, 2006, p92) which is conflict that essentially exists but is not necessarily expressed.

And that

 “The three dimensional view allows us to consider the many ways in which potential issues are ‘kept out’ of politics, whether through individuals’ decisions or through the operation of social forces and institutional practices.” (Lorenzi, 2006, p92)

It can be considered difficult to illustrate these key concepts in terms of empirical evidence, however, I have found that simplifying Lukes’ third dimensional view into their separate dimensions; force, issue control and thought control, allows us to understand his ideas more clearly.

Firstly, the dimension of force generally refers to military power. In recent years military power has been used as a method of force in allowing actions to be determined as necessary. Secondly Lukes refers to ‘issue control’. In modern society the mainstream media plays an imperative role in creating bias for a particular ideology, therefore the way in which information, and what particular information is told is controlled by the powerful resulting in the shaping of peoples views. Finally, when Lukes discusses the idea of thought control I believe application of this can be seen with the use of propaganda and advertising. It can be said, that as a capitalist society, we are heavily influenced by advertising of various sorts. I believe in this way power is exerted by the use of thought control. Lorenzi describes that potential issues are deliberately kept out of politics; I believe this to be true and demonstrates how Lukes' third dimensional view of power resonates in modern day politics.

Defining the 3 Dimensions of Power

When exploring the various attributes of power we must identify how the powerful attain compliance. In 1974 Steven Lukes’ Power: A Radical View was published. Lukes' aim was to demonstrate that the one and two-dimensional view on power was inadequate, and that from the two emerged a more suitable angle to demonstrate the varying dynamics of power: the third dimensional view.

The first dimensional view of power, or the pluralist view, explores Robert Dahl’s The Concept of Power 1957, Nelson Polsby’s Community Power and Political Theory 1963, and Raymond Wolfinger’s Nondecisions and the Study of Local Politics 1971. Lukes believed the exercise of power, i.e. the difference between possession of power and its exercise, is the central theme to this view. He also claimed that its focus is on studying observable behaviour and specific outcomes in order to determine decision making and to extract reliable conclusions.

“Thus I conclude that this first, one-dimensional, view of power involves a focus on behaviour in the making of decisions on issues over which there is an observable conflict of (subjective) interests, seen as expressing policy preferences, revealed by political participation.” (Lukes, 1974, p19)

The second dimensional view of power or the critics’ view of the first dimension as it has been referred to, is a qualified analysis of the restrictions of the pluralistic view. Lukes explores the work of Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz’s Two Faces of Power 1962 who claim that ‘mobilization of bias’ is allowed through specific control of the political agenda. The different types of power that came into play to achieve this control include: coercion, influence, authority, force and manipulation. This view, according to Lukes, examined nondecision making as well as decision making paying attention to observable conflict with a wider group of interests.

Lukes wrote that the two dimensional view is ‘too committed to behaviourism’ and was inadequate in expressing the importance of latent conflict. He claimed there were three dimensions of power in modern society. He argued that the first two views of power focused on power arising from conflict, but did not take into consideration that the power that emerges from preventing such conflict in arising, could be considered a greater form of power than the rest.

“The trouble seems to be that both Bachrach and Baratz and the pluralists suppose that because power, as they conceptualize it, only shows up in cases of actual conflict, it follows that actual conflict is necessary to power. But this is to ignore the crucial point that the most effective and insidious use of power is to prevent such conflict from arising in the first place.” (Lukes, 1974, p27)