’s Three Dimensions Of Power Essay, Research Paper
“Power serves to create power. Powerlessness serves to re-enforce
powerlessness”(Gaventa,1980:256). Such is the essence of the on going
relationship between the Powerful and the Powerless of the Appalachian Valley where acquiescence of the repressed has become not only common practice but a
way of life and a means of survival. In his novel Power and Powerlessness, John
Gaventa examines the oppressive and desperate situation of the Appalachian coal
miners under the autocratic power of absentee land-owners, local elites, and
corrupt union leaders. His analyses is based on Lukes three-dimensional
understanding of power from his book Power: A Radical View. Gaventa applies the
three notions of power to the politics of inequalities in the Appalachian Valley
and, while demonstrating the inadequacies of the first or ‘pluralist’ approach
and the merits of the second and particularly the third dimensions, asserts that
the interrelationship and reinforcing affect of all three dimensions is
necessary for an in depth understanding of the “total impact of power upon the
actions [or inactions] and conceptions of the powerless”(Gaventa:256)
This essay will examine Luke’s three power dimensions and their
applicability to Gaventa’s account of the inequities found in the valleys of the
Cumberland Mountains. Reasons for the mountain people’s submission and non-
participation will be recognized and their nexus with the power relationship
established. In this way, Gaventa’s dissatisfaction with the pluralist approach
will be justified and the emphatic ability of the other two dimensions to
withhold issues and shape behaviour will be verified as principal agents of
Power and Powerlessness.
The one dimensional view of power is often called the ‘pluralist’
approach and emphasizes the exercise of power through decision making and
observable behaviour. Robert Dahl, a major proponent of this view, defines
power as occurring in a situation where “A has power over B to the extent he can
get B to do something that B would not otherwise do”(Dahl as cited in Lukes,
1974:11). A’s power therefore is defined in terms of B and the extent to which
A prevails is determined by its higher ratio of ’successes’ and ‘defeats’ over B.
Observable behaviour then becomes a key factor in the pluralist approach
to power. Dahl’s Who Govern’s? expresses the pluralist belief that the
political arena is an open system where everyone may participate and express
grievances which in turn lead to decision making. Those who propose
alternatives and initiate issues which contribute to the decision making process
are demonstrating observable influence and control over those who failed all
together to express any interest in the political process.
The Pluralist approach assumes that in an open system, all people, not
just the elite, would participate in decision making if they felt strongly
enough about an issue and wanted their values to be expressed and represented.
Non-participation therefore is thought to express a lack of grievances and a
consensus with the way the leaders are already handling the system. Political
inaction is not a problem within the one-dimensional system, it merely reflects
apathy of ordinary citizens with little interest or knowledge for political
matters, and their acceptance of the existing system which they see as rewarding
mutual benefits to society.
While politics is primarily an elite concern to the pluralist, ordinary
people can have a say if they become organized, and everyone has indirect
influence through the right to the franchise in the electoral process.
Pluralism recognizes a heterogeneous society composed of people belonging to
various groups with differing and competing interests. Conflict is therefore
also recognized as not only an expected result but as a necessary instrument
which enables the determination of a ruling class in terms of who the winner is.
Dahl,(as cited in Lukes,1974:18) states:
Who prevails in decision-making seems the best
way to determine which individual and groups have
more power in social life because direct conflict
between actors presents a situation most approximating
an experimental test of their capacities to affect
outcome.
Both Lukes and Gaventa put forward the notion that restricting your
analyses of a power situation to the one dimensional model can skew your
conclusions. If you limit yourself to this approach your study will be impaired
by a pluralistic biased view of power. Where the first dimension sees power in
its manifest functions of decision making over key issues raising observable
conflict due to policies raised through political participation, it ignores the
unobservable mechanisms of power that are sometimes just as or even more
important.
Many times power is exercised to prevent an issue from being raised and
to discourage participation in the political arena. Potential issues and
grievances are therefore not voiced and to assume this means that they do not
exist would be an outright deviation from fact. By restricting analyses to what
is expressed and to observable behaviour and overt conflict only, you miss any
preference not expressed because of fear of sanctions, manipulation, coercion
and force.
This critique of the behaviourial focus and the recognition of
unobservable factors of power is discussed in the two-dimensional view of power
developed by Bachrach and Baratz by which “power is exercised not just upon
participants within the decision making process but also towards the exclusion
of certain participants and issues altogether”(Schattsneider, as cited in
Lukes,1974:16). This theory proposes that political organizations develop a
“mobilization of bias… in favour of the exploitation of certain kinds of
conflict and the suppression of others… some issues are organized in while
others are organized out”(Ibid.,16).
The first dimension claims there is an open system and although
admitting that political resources are not distributed equally, they are also
not centralized in one groups hands. Everyone has the opportunity to use other
resources and be heard. The second approach however, sees a monopolistic system
of inequalities created and maintained by the dominant power. The elite have
the means and the political resources to prevent political action that would not
benefit themselves and to push forward those that would. The Elite therefore
determine the agenda of both decision making and non-decision making and in so
doing establish their dominance and the subordinance and compliance of those on
the bottom of the power hierarchy.
Although the two dimensional approach to power delves deeper than the
first into the nature of power and powerlessness by involving analyses of
potential issues, grievances, nondecision-making and non-participation, Both
Lukes and Gaventa find that it is on the same level as the first dimension in
that it also emphasizes observable conflict only. Of course it is true that
the first does stress only overt while the second stresses both overt and/or
covert conflict. Nonetheless, an affinity between the two results in their
belief that where there is conflict, there is an element of power in decision
making and, for the second dimension, in nondecision-making. Barach and Baratz
(as cited in Lukes,1974:19) states that if “there is no conflict, overt or
covert, the presumption must be that there is consensus on the prevailing
allocation of values, in which case nondecision-making is impossible.” Here,
there is obviously no consideration of latent conflict or attention as to how
interests not consciously articulated may fit into the power relationship.
Lukes identifies manipulation and authority as two forms of power which
do not necessarily involve evident conflict. People abide by the power of
authority because they either respect or accept its legitimacy. Compliance to
the power of manipulation often goes unrecognized by the conformer because focus
is placed on irrelevant matters and the key aim is downplayed. In neither is
there observable (overt or covert) conflict, but latent conflict occurs because
the individual may be agreeing to something contrary to their interests without
even knowing.
The three dimensional view of power then, criticizes the behaviourial
focus of the first two dimensions and adopts the consideration of hidden social
forces and conflict which exercise influence by shaping the consciousness of the
individual or organization. This view strays from the others in that it focuses
not only on decisions and nondecisions but on other ways to control the
political agenda which are not made deliberately by the choice of individuals or
groups.
The third mechanism of power seeks to identify “the means through which
power influences, shapes or determines conceptions of necessities, possibilities,
and strategies of challenge in situation of conflict”(Gaventa,1980:15). In
other words, it involves specifying how A gets B to believe and choose to act in
a way that reinforces the bias of the system, advancing the cause of A and
impairing that of B, usually in the form of compliance.
Such processes can take place in a direct and intended way through media
and communication. ‘A’ takes control of the information channels and ‘B’ is
socialized into accepting, believing and even supporting the political notions
instilled by ‘A’. The shaping of individual’s conceptions can also take place
indirectly or even unintentionally through ones membership in a social structure.
Patterns of behaviour, norms and accepted standards apparent in the action and
inaction of the group are automatically adopted. “Social legitimations are
developed around the dominant, and instilled as beliefs or roles in the
dominated” (Gaventa,1980:15).
Passive acceptance of situations or circumstances that are in conflict
with one’s interests occur even when the subordinated realise they are being
repressed. They submit quietly because of fear of sanctions but also because
they have gone through a “psychological adaptation to the state of being without
power” (Gaventa:16). They recognize their powerlessness and see no possibility
to reverse it and therefore submit to their hopeless situation with lethargic
acceptance.
After continual defeat, the conceptions of the powerlessness may be
altered as a learned response. “Over time, the calculated withdrawal by ‘B’ may
lead to an unconscious pattern of withdrawal, maintained not by fear of power of
‘A’ but by a sense of powerlessness within ‘B’, regardless of ‘A’s condition”
(Gaventa, 1980:16). Although ‘B’ was originally aware of their state of
oppression, time has quelled the initial fear and has desensitized their drive
to remain unconstrained and autonomous. Without even realizing, B continues to
submit, more as a form of habit then as a response to a particular situation.
As a further adaptive response “the sense of powerlessness may also lead
to a greater susceptibility to the internalisation of the values, beliefs or
rules of the game of the powerful”(Gaventa, 1980:17). What may have once been
strong convictions to a people are systematically lost and the beliefs of the
ruling class are accepted in silence, not only because of a sense of
powerlessness but because they have been indoctrinated to condone whatever the
powerful put forward.
Gaventa applies Luke’s three dimensional theory of power to the case of
the Central Appalachian valley in the United States. He argues that the
dimensions of power can be used to better understand the pattern of quiescence
that has been occurring in this region of indisputable inequities for over a
generation. The pluralist approach is established as inadequate in its attempt
to interpret power relationships alone and the implementation of the other two
dimensions is found to be essential to explain the situation in the Appalachian
mountains.
The History of Central Appalachia has developed much like that of a
primitive country under the influence of colonization by a dominant world power.
It is one in which an isolated, agrarian society has sparked the interest of the
industrialized world as having economic potential, and has consequently been
established as a dependant and thrust into a rapid series of transformation to
bring it up to modern standards. Productivity and economic pursuits are the
principle concern while the people and their culture are more of a hindrance
than a priority. They are expected to shift right along with the rest of the
changes. Their traditional way of life is subsequently threatened, altered, and
eventually irretrievably lost.
By the late nineteenth century, the economic potential emanating from
the vast wealth of natural coal resources of the Appalachian Mountains were well
recognized and Middlesborough, a once quiet rural community, had experienced an
economic boom and grown into the industrial mining centre labelled the ‘Magic
City of the South’. The entire enterprise had been established under the
singular leadership of the American Association Ltd., of London. Millions of
dollars were pumped into the area but because of the ownership monopoly and
primarily foreign investors, the mountain people themselves reaped little or
none of the benefits.
Their agrarian based mainstay was threatened and destroyed as the
‘Anglo-American enterprise’ expropriated acres and acres of mineral-rich land.
“The acquisition of land is the first step in the process of economic
development and the establishment of power.” (Gaventa,1980:53). It was also the
first step in the subordination of the mountaineers. Losing their land meant a
change in lifestyle from a largely independent group of farmers to a group of
coal miners dependent upon the Company for a salary.
Mountaineers were most often ‘voluntarily’ bought out. Few cases of
actual conflict occurred and the people’s land was taken virtually without
challenge or opposition to a new order. Often the land was sold to the Company
for a price far below its worth. The inherent value of the mountaineer’s land
went unknowing to them while the Association who knew full well of the highly
valued mineral-rich soil, took advantage of the situation and bought it for very
little.
If this ‘acquisition’ of land were studied using only the first
dimension of power, the Company would be comparable to A who’s power is defined
by its higher ratio of ’successes’ over B’s ‘defeats’”. One would recognize
that the Company demonstrated observable control and influence over the
Appalachian people but would be justified in their actions.
The lack of challenge on the mountaineer’s (or B’s) part would be seen
as an expression of consensus to the take-over of their land. Since few
grievances were expressed it would be assumed that the issue was not of enough
importance to the people who therefore did not organize to put forward any
alternatives. The Association had the initiative to propose issues and
contribute to decision making while the Middlesborough citizens were apathetic
to what was going on. The Company’s ’successes’ in decision making enhanced
their power, legitimizing them as more fit to rule.
Limiting yourself to this analyses would dismiss many factors that led
to the quiescence of the mountain people, and would prevent a deeper
understanding of this case. Using Luke’s second dimension of power, the non-
challenge to the land-takeover would not be viewed as apathy on the part of the
ordinary people but as the result of unobservable forces and covert conflict
working to prevent their expression of scepticism and dispute.
This would support the view that within the political organizations of
Middlesborough there was a “mobilization of bias”. When distribution of the
land was decided by the court, it most often went to the highest bidder. The
Company held obvious power in its economic advantage leaving no doubt to anyone,
including the courts, who would win out. By basing ownership rights on economic
capabilities, challenge on behalf of the mountaineers was made scarce and
considered a futile effort. In this way the issue of Company ownership was
‘organized in’ and the people’s land claims were ‘organized out’.