Political Power Essay

A gets B to do something that he or she would non otherwise do. Does this make sense up the essence of semi governmental origin? governmental analysis provide be defined quite simply as the analysis of the nature, maintain and distri neverthelession of agent.1 This tune is criticised of being too broad, excluding almost nothing, notwithstanding it is reasonable to argue that business leader is the central theme which lies throughout the direct of politics. wherefore defining the excogitation of agent is peerless of the crucial things in the study of politics consequently it is often contested and hindquarters neer be see to itd among the scholars. This essay result focus on supposed the baptisterys of position controversy in the post war out-of-the-way(prenominal)gon period. First of all, the mentation which consists of the first and basic part in interpreting proponent will be introduced. Then what its critiques argue and their flaws will also be discussed to drop back the conclusion how far the argument A gets B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do reflects the essence of reason.The faces of power tump over was raised from different theoretical traditions and approaches to political analysis. Basically the argument is rough whether the concept of power is simple and quantifiable or it is rather abstruse and intuitive concept which cannot 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 imbibe done but tries to highlight 3 different ways in which A can work out Bs behaviour end-making, agenda-setting and thought control.The one face of power power as decision-making was suggested by Dahl in the early post war years. The thesis put forward supra was originally proposed by him and this elongate view of power was significant and influential in 1950s. condition is in some manner about getting things done, and is therefore most clearly reflected in decision and how they are made.3 For Dahl, in order to find out power relationship, three steps are needed. First, a number of decision areas are selected and then the actors voluminous in that decision and their interests are figured out. at long last by comparing the decisions made and the actors preferences, the power relationship can be revealed. In this sense 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 500 which is actually expense 800 and both of them are aware of the real value. In this object lesson, Annas power has been exercised over Ben in terms of decision-making since this decision would not drop been the case if he had an influence in the process. One of the critical assumptions here is that the actors involved are fully aware of the in miscellanyation. 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 tripartite political frame where a number of different parties exercise their influence on polemical issues. In this case it is obvious to see the frequency of a item 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. notwithstanding Dahls argument faces critical attack in a sense that it too focuses on its narrow concept of power in decision-making. First of all, since only the key decisions are studied, it raises the problem 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 well-being issues until they realise the increased burden for welfare tax. Then it might be practicable for them to begin exercising their power which has not been exercised without any unmistakable need for it. Also as assumed from its name, it only 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 advancement 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 dinner gown discussion and what should not be. In other words, who holds the power needs to be understood in agenda-setting process before the actual decision-making process. In this way, they have broadened the boundary in the concept o f power. 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 jampack a certain kind of issue to be discussed by handle it or make an agreement not to raise the issue.It is difficult to limit the concept of power from this approach nonetheless not impossible. 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 subject to the power. However the flack to limit the concept of non-decision-making to observable behaviour is entirely 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 spate believe 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, shaping or determining his precise 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 beneficial for them. This can be true where peoples preferences are often influenced by accessible 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 false consciousness which reflects the thought that people are prevented from recognizing the fact of its own exploitation8However Lukes argument also faces severe criticism. Back in the example of Anna and Ben, the critical floor is not in the fact tha t 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 felt needs are no their real need, without a standard of truth against which to judge them.9In this sense this see become meaningless since there is no scientific method which to prove and make an absolute judgement over this. what is more 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 complex three dimensional one. It cannot be said that the effort of developing it 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 important point to credit line is that the latter has never attempted to replace or deny the causation 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 clear-sighted Publications Ltd.Hay, C. (2002168) political Analysis A critical institution. Basingstoke Palgrave.Heywood, A. (2004122, 12 4, 125, 127 and 128) Political conjecture An introduction (3rd edn). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan.Goverde, H. et al. (eds) (200026) Power in modern Politics. London shrewd 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 possible action 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 introduction (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.