Simmel, next week
I didn't post on Simmel, so feel free to send your Simmel questions and comments here.This coming week, we turn our attention to the study of power amongst political scientists in the 1950's and 1960's, including Robert Dahl and his "second face" critics.
The first "face" of power is represented by Robert Dahl. Nice, short, easy readings for Tuesday to make up for Parsons.
What I'd like to do on Tuesday is, first, make sure we're all on the same page and have a good understanding of the first face model of power, as described by Lukes and using Dahl as an example.
Then I'd like to consider the following issues:
1) Assumptions (including unstated assumptions) of this view of power
2) Strengths of this approach
3) Weaknesses of this approach
4) Normative implications of this approach
We'll do something very similar for The second face on Thursday.
I'd like to see an online discussion get started. Use this thread to post your comments on any of the above issues regarding the first face of power and Dahl's approach. I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on his strengths and weaknesses.
posted by djw @ 3:45 PM
10 Comments:
I liked how Dahl acknowledged there were potentially infinite problems with trying to define power, legitimate power, and “power terms” due to interpretation issues and lack of proper measurement techniques – but he said there are also many similarities and common themes that can be analyzed to help clarify certain concepts. I think this is a lot like what we found in class in trying to find a definition of power. His interpretation was admittedly, “an attempt to clarify these common elements by ignoring many differences in terminology, treatment, and emphasis” (p. 41). I guess, for me, this lends credibility to the argument because he’s not saying his definitions are absolute and/or absolutely correct.
His main assumption is that power is a certain kind of causal relationship. Therefore, the breakdown of terms into descriptive, dependent variables and explanatory, independent variables seems logical. The strength of this is making the reader look at who really has power, how much to they have, how they got it, etc,. I never thought of some of the aspects he brought up – like seeing power as opportunity cost of C and R’s response. The obvious weakness is that his definitions of each term can be contested. For instance in the explanation of “skill” – does he mean a different level of skill or a different kind of skill (or is he counting political skill and a specific type of skill).
I thought his discussion of ‘classifying types of power’ was interesting - especially his conclusion that latent power could lead to specific power structures for each individual. It made me think of the “reciprocal effectiveness” of the other reading – where the “subordinates” really had quite a bit of power over the “superordinates” (who may have formal/official power).
Dahl’s simplified definition of power seems to have little value when his criticisms of various methods to describe power are factored in. The linear A gets B to do something he wouldn’t otherwise do concept of power does not sufficiently acknowledge that power is more of a flow back and forth, dependent on many variables and actors. Dahl acknowledges several complications of power in his discussion of descriptive and explanatory characteristics. Power can only be measured in an ordinal system, (42) and Dahl’s discussion of scope leaves the door wide open for analysis that could necessarily encompass a very wide scope. Motivations vary from person to person (45) and are hard to predict or even determine. Dahl also explains that it is very difficult to identify and demonstrate causation. In light of all these weaknesses in power theory the A and B test seems to be a simplification to avoid these problems, however by not including the problems the A and B definition seems to have superficial use.
When reading Robert Dahl's notion of what power is (that being a simplisitic definition of A getting B to do something he wouldn't do otherwise) it was interesting to look back at the definitions of power that all of us students wrote at the beginning of the class. The majority of the definitions were very similar to that of Dahl's. However, as we move further into the discussion of power, it is clear that the concept of power is much more complex, in the sense that there are many factors that determine the type of power that one can exert. For example, the idea of motivation was interesting to me, though Dahl's discussion of it was brief. The two different motivations, where one may use his power to increase more power, or one may not (45). However, it seems that no matter what the intentional motivations are, one using their power naturally increases their power. By exerting power and exercising control over others, you automatically reinforce the power that you have, which would increase your power, considering their wasn't a revolt against the powerful. In any event it was just a thought.
Another interesting concept that Dahl discusses is the distinciton between having power and exercising power. This distinction creates a problem for the analysis of power due to the fact that it is hard to decihper the causal relationship with power, simply because you can not explicitly determine if R's (the one being controled) actions are a result of C's (the one in power) directly exercising their power, or if R's actions are resulted from the perceived authority that C has, though he does not actually enforce his power (51). This reminds me of the example used in class previous of the authority of the teacher. Many students act in certain ways, such as not being late to class, doing the readings assigned, etc. because they do not want to disobey the teacher, though the teacher may not exercise this power directly (since they are not forcing you to do homework, come to class, etc.), but rather they have power through their authoritative position. And with that, the fact that they have the ability to exercise control, whether they actually do or not, influences the behavior of students.
I have a small question that may not have much relevance but is bothering me. Wondering if anyone could give me a quick answer. On Dahl's descriptive characteristics, I'm having a hard time differentiating the characteristics of Magnitude and Scope. I read the text understanding that scope referred to the relative power of R and C with regards to specialization, so that R maybe more powerful than C at times or vice versa. But I'm confused how this differs from Magnitude, which measures the perceived amount of power difference between R and C. It seems like they overlap. am I just confused?
-Eli Kim
Hey Eli,
The way I read it was that magnitude meant how much, or the amount, of power someone had. Dahl says the term 'magnitude' implies power could be measured (but then says how to measure it hasn't been addressed). I just took it as people referring to magnitude when they say, "how powerful is leader X...are they more powerful than leader Y?"
As for scope, I THINK the main thing Dahl's referring to is that C's are more powerful in certain fields/activities than they are in others. So it has more to do with WHERE they are powerful.
Just to follow up on Emily's comment...
Dahl specifies what he means by measurement of magnitude of power at the end of the chapter, when he refers to the techniques of game-theoretical criteria, newtonian criteria, and economic criteria.
I guess all this mathematical analysis of power worries me. I don't really know what to make of it. How do you measure something mathematically that does not exist within the structural framework of mathematics? We can do exercises in calculus and statistics, but all of that rests on the knowledge that 2+2=4. So what kind of basic framework is power founded on? I've never thought about it in a mathematical sense. Maybe some resident mathematicians might help me get a grasp at what Dahl's saying?
There are so many factors involved in an attempted calculation. It's interesting to note that in the beginning of the chapter, Dahl says "the analysis of power does not logically imply any particular psychological assumptions," but at the end of the chapter, one of the types of measurement he cites includes this factor: "The measure Harsanyi proposes...could be extended - at least in principle - to include psychological costs of all kinds." Anyone find the relation between these two statements strange?
i agree w/ken. i think there is strange relation how Dahl uses "psychological assumptions/costs" differently during the beginning and ending of his essay. it confuses me. Dahl leads me on throughout his essay, then at the end his argument doesn't quite clearly match up. i am begining to doubt what he says.
i am still wondering what basic framework power is founded on since Dahls' mathematical sense doesn't quite persuade me.
I did not like how there was not a diffinate term of power used to discribe the views of legitmacy in power form. There was no absoulte right way that Dahl describe power in a definition. By having power you control others. Also by having power you have the right to exerting power as well says Dahl Im confused.
Raheem, I think you are confused because you must first understand the field in which Dahl gives his description of power. Dahl is concerned with the social aspect of power. Decisions are made based on which interests mobilize and exert influence most succesfully. Special interests are narrow and in conflict with the public good, for example the problem with kansas in the book "Whats the matter with kansas". For Dahl power is the ability of A to get B to do what he otherwise would not have done. In other words power is control of behavior, and the ability to influence opinion. This was shown in his study on New Haven. I hope this might help you a little.
Even though Dahl's definition of power is narrow, I can understand his concept of it. His definition does not have to be focus on individual making another individual to do something, but groups, values, norms, or anything can make one, group, society, or the world to act on something that they would not usually do. To me, his simplification is him finding the core meaning of power.
Post a Comment
<< Home