Power has always been of a central meaning for the society as it is inherent in any social resp. political or economic relations. This concerns any kind of society, from the simple, primitive clans of hunter- gatherers, which are only segmentary differentiated to the highly differentiated societies of today´s industrial nations. Of course the importance of power relations has grown together with the amount of different social positons. According to its importance, it is a controversially discussed issue in many sciences. Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy and the economic sciences offer a large variety of different theories to explain its diverse aspects. One of the most influential concepts of power has been developed by Steven Lukes in his work “Power: A Radical View”. The following text will compare and contrast this book with Sallie Westwood´s “Power and the Social”. In the process, theoretical arguments and conclusions of both texts will initially be introduced followed by a consideration of several objections to each book.
2. Steven Lukes’ “Power: A Radical View”
In 1974, Steven Lukes published his book “Power: A radical View”. Despite its size of no more than 60 pages, it still had an enormous impact and provided material for further discussions and academic debates on the concept of power, as well as empiric research. However, his approach has been outmost controversially discussed and criticised. In a response to this, he published the second edition in 2005. There, he made concessions to criticism but also vindicated himself and still defends a revised version of his model.
However, in the following text, I will refer mainly to Lukes` 1974 essay, in which he first criticised the theoretical views of power which have been dominant in the earlier part of the twentieth century, that is to say, the one- dimensional and the two- dimensional accounts of power. In the process of his critique on the previous accounts, more importantly, he first introduced his own three- dimensional approach.
To understand Lukes` objections, the one- and two- dimensional concepts shall first be roughly explained.
(...)
Table of Contents
1. Introductory remarks
2. Steven Lukes’ “Power: A Radical View”
3. Critique on Lukes account of power
4. Sallie Westwood’s “Power and the Social”
5. Critique on Sallie Westwood’s “Power and the Social”
6. Comparison and conclusion
Objectives and Research Focus
The primary objective of this coursework is to provide a comparative analysis of the conceptual approaches to power as presented by Steven Lukes in "Power: A Radical View" and Sallie Westwood in "Power and the Social". The work aims to contrast Lukes’ theoretical focus on the three-dimensional nature of power with Westwood’s multidisciplinary and substantive analysis of power within specific social contexts, while simultaneously evaluating the critiques associated with both approaches.
- Theoretical examination of one-, two-, and three-dimensional views of power.
- Critique of Lukes' model regarding its narrow focus on domination and potential normativity.
- Application of power theories to substantive areas such as race, class, and gender in Westwood’s work.
- Critical reflection on the boundaries between scientific analysis and normative judgment in social research.
- Synthesis and comparison of the diverse academic functions served by the two distinct approaches.
Excerpt from the Book
Steven Lukes’ “Power: A Radical View”
In 1974, Steven Lukes published his book “Power: A radical View”. Despite its size of no more than 60 pages, it still had an enormous impact and provided material for further discussions and academic debates on the concept of power, as well as empiric research. However, his approach has been outmost controversially discussed and criticised. In a response to this, he published the second edition in 2005. There, he made concessions to criticism but also vindicated himself and still defends a revised version of his model. However, in the following text, I will refer mainly to Lukes` 1974 essay, in which he first criticised the theoretical views of power which have been dominant in the earlier part of the twentieth century, that is to say, the one- dimensional and the two- dimensional accounts of power. In the process of his critique on the previous accounts, more importantly, he first introduced his own three- dimensional approach.
To understand Lukes` objections, the one- and two- dimensional concepts shall first be roughly explained:
• The one- dimensional view of power states that A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do respectively, power involves a successful attempt by A to get B to do something he would not otherwise do. This dimension is concerned with concrete and observable behaviour. It relates to overt political conflicts. and which party can enforce decisions in their favour. This concept has become known as the pluralistic resp. the behaviouristic view of power.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introductory remarks: This chapter introduces the central role of power in various social and political structures and outlines the comparative focus of the paper.
2. Steven Lukes’ “Power: A Radical View”: This section explains Lukes' three-dimensional approach to power, distinguishing it from previous one-dimensional and two-dimensional models.
3. Critique on Lukes account of power: The chapter examines various academic criticisms regarding Lukes' focus on domination and the potential normativity of his concept of "real interests."
4. Sallie Westwood’s “Power and the Social”: This chapter analyzes Westwood’s work, which applies existing power theories to specific contexts such as race, class, gender, and sexuality.
5. Critique on Sallie Westwood’s “Power and the Social”: This section evaluates criticisms of Westwood's work, particularly regarding the blurring of scientific analysis and normative political judgment.
6. Comparison and conclusion: The final chapter synthesizes the findings, noting that while both authors address power, they serve different, yet complementary, academic functions.
Keywords
Power, Steven Lukes, Sallie Westwood, Three-dimensional power, Non-decision making, Social science, Domination, Political agenda, Racism, Feminism, Normative judgment, Theoretical analysis, Social structures, Interests, Behavioral focus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental subject of this coursework?
The work focuses on a comparative analysis of two prominent academic perspectives on the concept of power, specifically contrasting Steven Lukes' theoretical framework with Sallie Westwood’s contextualized approach.
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
The central themes include the evolution of power theories (one-, two-, and three-dimensional views), the critique of these theories by contemporary scholars, and the practical application of power concepts in areas like race, gender, and social institutions.
What is the primary objective of the research?
The primary objective is to compare and contrast the theoretical arguments of Lukes and Westwood, while providing a critical assessment of the limitations and strengths of their respective approaches to defining and analyzing power.
Which scientific methods are primarily utilized?
The paper employs a qualitative literature-based analysis, utilizing comparative methods to examine theoretical frameworks and existing academic critiques of the selected texts.
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body details the development of power theories from the 1970s onwards, explores the critique of Lukes' "radical view," analyzes Westwood’s thematic chapters on social issues, and concludes by assessing the differing impacts of these two authors on social science research.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Power, Three-dimensional power, Domination, Social structures, Theoretical analysis, and Normative judgment.
How does the author characterize the distinction between Lukes and Westwood?
The author distinguishes Lukes as a theorist primarily concerned with abstract models and the critique of political power, whereas Westwood is characterized as applying these theories to investigate concrete social sites like identity, racism, and state institutions.
What is the specific criticism regarding Westwood’s methodology?
The author criticizes Westwood for occasionally crossing the boundary between objective scientific analysis and subjective, normative judgment, particularly in her rhetoric regarding state institutions and racial discrimination.
- Citar trabajo
- Val Kauth (Autor), 2007, Power in society , Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/115109
