Political Power Essay

A masters B to do something that he or she would non differently do. Does this sum up the encumbrance of political condition? semipolitical analysis locoweed be defined quite simply as the analysis of the nature, exercise and distri plainlyion of agent.1 This argument is criticised of being too broad, excluding almost nothing, nevertheless it is reasonable to argue that advocate is the central constitution which lies throughout the study of politics. Therefore defining the concept of source is unrivalled of the crucial things in the study of politics consequently it is a good deal contest and rear never be agreed among the scholars. This es declare will commission on so-called the fonts of billet controversy in the post fight period. First of all, the idea which consists of the first and locoweedonic part in translation power will be introduced. thusly what its critiques argue and their flaws will in any case be discussed to draw the conclusion how uttermost t he argument A gets B to do something that he or she would not other do reflects the burden of power.The faces of power debate was rhytidoplastyd from different theoretical traditions and draw neares to political analysis. essentially the argument is about whether the concept of power is simple and quantifiable or it is rather complicated and intuitive concept which raisenot be measured. Lukes2 acknowledges that this concept can never be settled. Alternatively he accepts the broad definition of power as As ability to get B to do what he or she would not otherwise have done still tries to highlight 3 different ways in which A can capture Bs behaviour conclusiveness-making, agenda-setting and thought control.The one face of power power as decision-making was suggested by Dahl in the earlier post war years. The thesis put forward above was primarily proposed by him and this one-dimensional view of power was significant and influential in 1950s. federal agency is somehow abo ut getting things done, and is thitherfore most blankly reflected in decision and how they atomic number 18 do.3 For Dahl, in order to comment out power kindred, three steps be needed. First, a bout of decision atomic number 18as are selected and then the actors baffling in that decision and their interests are figured out. Finally by comparing the decisions made and the actors preferences, the power human relationship can be revealed. In this soul power is understood as a concept which can be simplified and quantified.A clear example was shown in? governmental Analysis? Anna buys Bens car for euchre which is veridically worth 800 and both of them are aware of the real value. In this case, Annas power has been exercised over Ben in terms of decision-making since this decision would not have been the case if he had an influence in the process. One of the hyper vituperative assumptions here is that the actors involved are fully aware of the information. Anna could have made this deal without exerting power if Ben did not know the real value. This argument of power as a decision-making does often make sense in many-sided political system where a number of different parties exercise their influence on controversial issues. In this case it is obvious to see the oftenness of a particular partys preference coincides with the final decision. Thus, how far they have influence on decision-making can be understood in terms of their political power.However Dahls argument faces slender attack in a sense that it too focuses on its sign up concept of power in decision-making. First of all, since plainly the key decisions are studied, it raises the task of how far we are capable of distinguishing key issues and routine issues which are often ignored. Moreover, it does not take the potential power into account. In this manner, the power which is not exerted cannot be regarded as power. For instance, some business groups would not be concerned with the wel fare issues until they realise the increased burden for welfare tax. Then it might be possible for them to begin exercising their power which has not been exercised without any explicit need for it. Also as assumed from its name, it solely uncovers one face of power ignoring other circumstances in which decisions are prevented from happening, the area of non-decision-making.4 This gave a rise to the second face of power argument by Bachrach and Baratz.According to their view, power should be understood as agenda-setting which is the two dimensional approach. Power might be manifested not only in doing things but also in ensuring that things do not get done.5 What they basically insist is that power is exercised in choosing what should be involved in formal discussion and what should not be. In other words, who holds the power demand to be understood in agenda-setting process before the actual decision-making process. In this way, they have broadened the boundary in the concept of p ower. This kind of approach is well shown in the liberal democratic system where parties are seen as the medium of representing a particular preference on issues. However they can actually block a certain kind of issue to be discussed by disregarding it or make an agreement not to raise the issue.It is difficult to quantify the concept of power from this approach nonetheless not unacceptable. Thus they agree with the one-dimensional approach in a sense that there should be observable and demonstrable evidence of power relationship between the one who exercise power and the other who are melodic theme to the power. However the attempt to limit the concept of non-decision-making to observable behaviour is just arbitrary6 since it does not take in the case in which the subordinated do not recognise themselves as being subordinated. Consequently this problem gave a rise to the third-dimensional view introduced by Lukes.According to his argument, the basic assumption of the above two views is not quite right. What people opine as their interests does not necessarily mean their real interests. The ability of A to exercise power over B, not by getting B to do what he would not otherwise do, but, by influencing, organisation or determining his very wants7 What is meant here is that power lies in shaping peoples consciousness rather than their actions. In other words, without forcing them to do something visibly it is possible to make them do regarding that as natural and safe for them. This can be true where peoples preferences are often influenced by social experiences such as culture, education and media and these can be manipulated by those who have the power. In this way it naturally leads to the concept of ludicrous consciousness which reflects the idea that people are prevented from recognizing the occurrence of its own ontogeny8However Lukes argument also faces severe criticism. backside in the example of Anna and Ben, the critical point is not in the fact that Anna forced Ben to do something that he would not otherwise do, but in the fact that Ben behaved in a way which is contrary to his genuine interest. This raises a problematic point that who is to know Bens real interests. In effect,It is impossible to argue that peoples perceptions and preferences are a delusion, that their mat needs are no their real need, without a standard of truth against which to count on them.9In this sense this debate become meaningless since there is no scientific method which to prove and make an absolute sound judgement over this. Further more(prenominal) it is contested that nobody is capable of distinguishing the autonomous decision based on real interests and the one based on felt interests being manipulated from powerful.To conclude, the debate over the concept of power has been developed from the shallow one dimensional understanding to a more intuitive and knotty three dimensional one. It cannot be said that the effort of developing i t into more sophisticated form has always been successful. However through this process, it is true to say that the concept of power has been understood from various approaches which enabled better understanding. Nevertheless the key point to note is that the latter has never attempted to replace or deny the former approach since no single argument can define the political concept of power by its own. Rather, it has its root in the former argument and tries to make it more convincing. From this point of view, power is definitely something which enables A gets B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do. Therefore on one hand, it is possible to say that the essence of power lies in this argument to a certain extent but there can be plural ways depending on approaches in doing so. (1,419 words)ReferencesClegg, S.R. (198911) Frameworks of Power. London apt Publications Ltd.Hay, C. (2002168) governmental Analysis A critical introduction. Basingstoke Palgrave.Heywood, A. (2004122, 124, 125, 127 and 128) governmental conjecture An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.Goverde, H. et al. (eds) (200026) Power in Contemporary Politics. London SAGE Publications Ltd.BibliographyClegg, S.R. (1989) Frameworks of Power. London SAGE Publications Ltd.Goodwin, B. (1997) Using political ideas (4th edn). Chichester John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Goverde, H. et al. (eds) (2000) Power in Contemporary Politics. London SAGE Publications Ltd.Hay, C. (2002) Political Analysis A critical introduction. Basingstoke Palgrave.Heywood, A. (2004) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.McLean, I. & McMillan, A. (2003) Oxford concise dictionary of Politics (2nd edn). Oxford Oxford University Press.1 Hay, C. (2002168) Political Analysis A critical introduction. Basingstoke Palgrave.2 Heywood, A. (2004122) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.3 Heywood, A. (2004124) Political theory An introducti on (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.4 Heywood, A. (2004125) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.5 Clegg, S.R. (198911) Frameworks of Power. London SAGE Publications Ltd.6 Goverde, H. et al. (eds) (200026) Power in Contemporary Politics. London SAGE Publications Ltd.7 Heywood, A. (2004127) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.8 Heywood, A. (2004128) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.9 Heywood, A. (2004128) Political theory An introduction (3rd edn)). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.