Fourth Face of Power

 

Politics is power. Quite simply, power is politics, politics is power. As Ball notes, `power is arguably the single most important organising concept in social and political theory'.

The concept of power links it to the ability to achieve a desired outcome, sometimes referred to as power to. The concept of power has long been studied by political thinkers: For Machiavelli, power is an end in itself, and whatever means are necessary for a prince to acquire and maintain political power are justified. Thomas Hobbes however saw that competition for goods of life becomes a struggle for power because without power one cannot retain what one has acquired. One cannot retain power without acquiring more power. German sociologist Max Webber linked power of authority and rules, and focused on structures and bureaucracy. Robert Dahl continues Weber’s approach, both in the definition of power and in the attribution of it to a concrete human factor.  In “The Concept of Power” (1957), Dahl developed a formal definition of power, “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do. Dahl treated power as the ability to influence the decision-making process, an approach he believed to be both objective and quantifiable.

Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962) developed a model as a response to Dahl—the two faces of power (way decisions are made, and ways that they are not made). For example, on what basis can ‘key’ decisions, which are studied, be distinguished from ‘routine’ ones, which are ignored. Bachrach and Baratz described non-decision-making as the ‘second face of power. Although Bachrach and Baratz accepted that power is reflected in the decision-making process, they insisted that ‘to the extent that a person or group – consciously or unconsciously – creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power’

In the 1970s, Steven Lukes (1974) developed Bachrach and Baratz’s approach further. His devised the three dimension of power. In the first face, the decision making process, A’s power over B is manifested to the extent that A can make B do something which B would not have done had it not been for A. In the second face, agenda setting, certain subjects or participants are excluded from the process. In addition to the resources of the first dimension, the people with power mobilize game rules which work in their favor, at others’ expense. Decision-making may be prevented by the exertion of force, the threat of sanctions, or the mobilization of bias which creates a negative approach to the subject.

The third, latent dimension that of the true interests, explains that B does things that he would not have done had it not been for A because A influences, determines and shapes B’s will. Media, advertisement, political campaigns, education, mass action and others are but example of the subtle influence of public opinion.

Nowadays, we see a fourth face of power: the ability to embrace ambivalence and accept shallow truths. A headline is enough of information; a quick YouTube animated video can provide a sound justification for a policy; beautifully worded accusations masked with humanitarian values are adopted; and complete ambivalence to events - whether near or far – are perfectly acceptable.

Political power currently rests on that four face – a dangerous, lonely, and self-destructive facade.