Parfenova

How can we measure power? (According to one-two-three dimensional view)

Doubtlessly, the concept of power is key in sociological discipline as it helps to describe
and explain how does society function. However, there is no clear definition of this notion, there
are several meanings, and disputes about the most correct one still exist. (For example, Weber,
Marx and Parsons definitions differ). One of the definitions, given by Max Weber is “the ability
of an individual or group to achieve their own goals or aims when others are trying to prevent
them from realising them”. Everyone has a different access to this ability (power), someone has
more, someone-less. But how can we empirically measure who has power in society? This
question is essential to answer as to be able to compare different approaches to power concept, to
know their strong and weak points (if they exist) and if these theories are applicable to modern
society. We will approach the answer to the essay question following some steps. To begin with,
the essence of one-two-three dimensional view that was described in “Power: A Radical View”
by Steven Lukes will be presented. Moreover, these approaches will be compared. Furthermore,
we will describe using some examples how power can be measured.
According to Steven Michael Lukes there are “three faces of power”, they were firstly
described in his work “Power: A Radical View” in 1974. So, there are three views on power
concept: the view of the pluralists (the author calls it the one-dimensional view), the view of
their critics (two-dimensional) and a third view of power that “allows one to give a deeper and
more satisfactory analysis of power relations than either of other two”.
The proponents of the one-dimensional approach were Dahl and Polsby along with other
classic pluralists. They saw power as the process of decision-making over which there is an
observable (overt) conflict of interests. And the most powerful is one who wins the majority of
these conflicts. Dahl argued that “who prevails in decision-making” is “the best way to
determine which individuals and groups have more power”. This approach is sometimes called
“positivist” as it is based on empirical evidences and laws of causality rejecting intuitive
knowledge, simply: we should measure what is observable. So, how can we measure power in
this way? The methodology is counting of votes and decisions in decision making arena. For
example, in family father makes more decisions than mother and the last word is always after
him, so we can make a conclusion that father has more power in this family. To sum up,
according to this approach power is visible and simply measured.
The two-dimensional view represents the critique and addition to the first one. Conflict
can also be covert (invisible or hidden). Bachrach and Baratz argued that decision-making
ignores the ability of setting an agenda of debate. Power also includes coercion, influence,
authority, force and manipulation that can be referred to “nondecision-making”. In its turn,
nondecision is “a decision that results in suppression of a latent challenge to the values or
interests of the decision-maker”. But it should be outlined that this approach doesn’t reject
analysis of overt conflicts, two-dimensional view combines both decision-making and
nondecision-making. We can continue the example with family and say that father makes all
decisions in family following mother’s outlook. For instance, father is afraid to make a decision
based on his own interests because his wife won’t prepare him a dinner instead. In this situation
we can’t simply count decisions, we should explain the hidden processes by which the agenda is
set, so the methodological approach is ethnography of power corridors.
As for three dimensional view, it is called “radical” by author himself and states that
individuals or groups can misperceive their own interests. Lukes wrote in his essay that, the
central focus of research into power, should not be upon the latent conflicts over the interests of
power-holders and the ‘real interests’ of those who have less power. This approach has common
features with Marxist theories of ideology and false consciousness. However, it is difficult to
grasp people’s real interests because individuals may not be even conscious of them (real
interests). Still, methodology exists: we can critique the ideology to show people how they
misperceive their own material interests or we can ask them “what would you do if you were
completely free to choose?” Nevertheless, it’s still a question if these methods actually work. As
a good example to illustrate this problem is the current situation in North Korea. Investigations
(for instance, 10-day research by RT) showed that it is impossible to measure real interests of
citizens. Critique of ideology is useless because the majority of population don’t know about
other ways of governing. North Korea doesn’t allow to external information (from other
countries) to cross their boundaries, even the internet there is internal, purified from international
information. So, dwellers don’t have a material for comparison, they don’t have much variants to
choose, they have only one option and they are happy with it because they simply don’t know
about better options.
To sum up, power can be measured and according to Lukes there are three scopes in
which we can analyze power. We can measure power by counting decisions and those have more
power, who prevails in decision-making. We also can measure power with the help of
ethnomethodology to find out its invisible face. And finally, we should try to find out people’s
real interests that even for people themselves are unconscious. We can use all these frameworks
to analyze our modern society, its different spheres (not only political). In the end it should be
emphasized that the work of Steven Lukes, that combined the analysis of three approaches to
understanding power, is a great contribution to the sociological discipline as it showed and
explained different faces of power and presented a space for further analysis.