New Politic Flashcards
Why do some political scientists disagree with the method of studying politics through power?
They cannot afford to define their analytical sphere so broadly as to include all real and potential power relations.
The definition of power is so all-encompassing as to exclude almost nothing. Discipline would be unfocused
How do we reconcile the vagueness of power with politics?
Robert Dahl suggested that power just like politics, can often be described in more and less exclusive ways. And they do define power in such a way as to render it coextensive with the political while retaining an essential arena definition of the latter.
The First Face of Power
Decision-making power - (DAEZ)
Dominations one over the others
Attributes of an individual, being powerful
Effects need to be produced to affect the outcome
Zero-sum game, someone benefits while someone loses
Dahl’s Definitions of the First Face of Power
‘A has power over B to the extent that A can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do’
Limitations of this model (1)
The actor is assumed to have perfect information, and hence determine the best interest for themselves. If not then the transgressions aspect would then be voided, like ‘B would not otherwise do’ Classical Pluralist
Some decisions are more important than others, based on merely on frequency and quantitative measures simply ignore the qualitative importances.
Empiricism of the first face of power
The Freedom to Vote Act, intended to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws to reduce the influence of money in politics, and ban partisan gerrymandering. However, because of the large influence of lobbyists and the Republican Party, some Democrats voted against it, despite their interests.
It is often concrete and easily observable.
The Second Face of Power
Agenda-setting power
The determinations of what is or what is not subjected to political deliberations. Creating barriers in determining what political conflict could be discussed and what cannot.
In addition, the need to weigh issues in the decision-making process in terms of their ‘importance’ in assessing the real distribution of power
Keyword: Mobalisations of Bias (Functions of organisations, bias in favour some kind of conflict)
Peter Bachrach quote on second face of power
‘‘A decision that results in the suppression or thwarting of a latent or manifest challenge to the values or interests of the decision-maker’
The potential downfall of this approach (2)
The analysis of power was set to become an altogether more complex, exacting and, arguably, subjective task. This led several pluralist critiques to conclude that non-decision-making was simply unresearchable.
In addition, it still maintain the assumption that actors’ preferences are a direct representation of their material interests.
Empirical Evidences
Climate scientists reported that the administration edited their findings or blocked them from publication. (G.W.Bush)
Topics like cap-and-trade or emissions limits were largely kept off the legislative agenda.
Power was exercised through exclusion: keeping environmental reforms from becoming political issues.
The Third Face of Power
Preference-Shaping Power
The actions and inactions similarly implicated in the shaping of perceived interests and political preferences. This draws from Marxist and Critical Theory analysis, in understanding how power is dispersed and productive in its nature. Cultural norms, ideology, and socialization to create consent and acceptance of the status quo. There is no alternative to Capitalism
The potential problem of this approach (3)
As it requires the separation of real and perceived desires, this might lead to an elitist understanding, where it implies a privileged vantage point for the enlightened academic in determining the real interest. Link to Marx False’s consciousness. (Normative justifications)
Empirical Example of Third Face of Power
Advertising promotes the idea that personal happiness is found in consumption.
Many people work long hours to buy more, despite high stress and debt, accepting this as “normal” or “success.”
Power is invisible: it operates through ideology, normalizing a way of life and limiting alternatives.
Potential defence against the third face of power
Foucault rejects the idea of a pure “real interest” behind ideology.
But he still affirms the third face of power through concepts like discipline and subjectivation.
Power works by producing subjects who identify with certain roles and desires—not by repressing an authentic self underneath.
False Consciousness are not based on the “real interest”, but the immanent suppressions of desires and contradictions within the structures itself.
Foucault
Power has two aspects there is the prohibition functions such as the law against incest, but also productive aspects exist in constituting an individual identity, similar to Althusser’s interpolation, subjects are hailed into existences.
Power is decentralized, operating through discourses, institutions, and everyday practices.
Example of Foucault
Panopticon is a subtle mechanism of discipline, where individuals are constituted and censor themselves actively, even if there is no surveillance or explicit censorship, maintaining the power relationship. (internalisations of power)
The potential problem with Foucault
How do we measure power and understand it?
Because the criteria of measurement itself is already set by by the institutional framework of a given social order.
The circularity of all abstract approaches
If power operates by shaping consciousness, how do you prove it’s happening without assuming it in advance?
This leads to circular reasoning: If people don’t resist, that proves they’re oppressed—but also proves they’ve internalized power, which proves the theory.
Authority
It is a de jure concept, concerning rights or legitimacy. A regime or state must necessarily “transmute” its coercive power into authority, by invoking moral and legal criteria. As Coerisive power doesn’t last long.
Modern Elite Theory on Power
Modern elite theory emphasizes that power in society is concentrated in the hands of a small group of individuals or entities who occupy strategic positions within economic, political, and military institutions. (Derive from structural positions, not simply because that person are simply more superior)
Neo-Pluralism on Power
Power is distributed among multiple interest groups, but this distribution is uneven, and some groups (e.g., corporations) have structural advantages.
Compromise and Competition: Power is still disperse
De Jure vs De Facto
A distinction is therefore drawn between de jure authority— in which a right to behave in particular ways may be appealed to— and de facto authority— in which there is practical success of dictating situations.
Conceptual View of the State and Power
The state is based on a social contract—an agreement among individuals to form a political community that ensures order, rights, and mutual benefit. Individuals in a “state of nature” (pre-political condition) come together and agree to form a state to protect their life, liberty, and property.
Nightwatchman View of the State and Power
The state should be minimal, existing only to protect individuals from violence, theft, and fraud, and to enforce contracts. (State interventions impede individuals in the pursuit of their interests)