Lukes Reloaded: An Actor-Centred Three-Dimensional Power Framework
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9256.12099 |
| Published date | 01 May 2016 |
| Author | Terry Hathaway |
| Date | 01 May 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Politics
2016, Vol. 36(2) 118 –130
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9256.12099
pol.sagepub.com
Lukes Reloaded: An Actor-Centred
Three-Dimensional Power Framework
Terry Hathaway
University of Sheffield
This article develops an empirically-oriented actor-centred power framework. Building on work of Lukes and
Gaventa, the article outlines how visible, hidden and invisible power can be understood and operationalised.
The article considers how actors can realise their interests through decision making and the control of
resources (visible power); backdoor machinations and institutional organisation (hidden); and the structural-
discursive empowerment of the actor and the creation and use of discourse (invisible). Furthermore, a
regime evolution approach is sketched that facilitates understanding the dialectical interplay between society
and the formal political arena, and that focuses the measurement of power on societal outcomes – not
political outputs.
Keywords: Lukes, Steven; power; powercube; regime evolution
Introduction
Power is a central concept of political studies and one that helps delineate politics from
other disciplines (Clegg, 1979, pp. 32–33). Its central importance for politics lies partly in
the fact that understanding power is a necessary prerequisite for answering the eminent
question ‘who governs?’ (Dahl, 1961) or, even, Held and McGrew’s (2003, p. 8) more
precise ‘who rules, in whose interests, by what mechanisms and for what purposes?’.
Evolving directly from Robert Dahl’s question, Steven Lukes (1974; 2005) has arguably
provided the definition of power used in political science.1Yet, while Lukes’ conception of
power continues to be widely cited, utilisation of analytical frameworks specifically struc-
tured around Lukes’ conception of power in empirical studies has proven limited (Shapiro,
2006, p. 147).
There are several reasons for the scant application of Lukes’ conceptualisation of power – not
least the particular conceptualisation itself. This article outlines an approach that overcomes
the weaknesses that have seen limited empirical use of Lukes’ view of power. It does so by first
reviewing the development of the power debates up to Lukes in order to illustrate the
problems with his account, and then shows how recent theoretical innovations can overcome
these problems. Building on this conceptual groundwork, three analytical innovations for
approaching power analysis are suggested: regime evolution; mechanisms of influence; and
methods for detecting invisible power. In total, this article presents an actor-centred (but
not actor-centric) framework of political power that can be used for understanding both
formal political actors (parties, interest groups, governmental organisations) and powerful
societal actors (corporations, churches, charities, media organisations, terrorist groups, non-
governmental organisations, criminal syndicates, etc.) who have often been overlooked by
POLITICS: 2015 VOL ••(••), ••–••
doi: 10.1111/1467-9256.12099
© 2015 The Author.Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
Article
Lukes Reloaded: An Actor-
Centred Three-Dimensional
Power Framework
policy-making studies and gives several suggestions as to how to apply the framework
empirically. Such a framework has massive potential utility and can help return power to its
central place in political science.
Power as a concept
Starting with Dahl, a central question of interest group theory was ‘what is power?’ because
an answer to this question would allow a determination of who governs and who is powerful
in the political arena. Dahl’s (1957, pp. 202–203) answer was: ‘[M]y intuitive view of power,
then, is this: Ahas power over Bto the extent that he can get Bto do something that Bwould
not otherwise do.’ This view of power (later called the ‘first face’ of power) was seen a useful
starting point for understanding how one individual or group has power over another
individual or group. However, Dahl’s research agenda coming from his intuitive view of
power focused only on observable conflict; on the successes or failures of actors involved in
key issue areas (which in 1950s New Haven he identified as urban redevelopment, public
education and nomination for local office) in the political arena (Dahl, 1961, p. 175).
Dahl’s position was criticised by Bachrach and Baratz, who argued his focus on ‘key’ issue
areas was working after power had been exercised to remove issues from the policy-making
agenda (McFarland, 2007, p. 60). Thus, following Dahl’s established format, Bachrach and
Baratz (1962, p. 948) added:
[P]ower is also exercised when Adevotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and
political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to
public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the
extent that Asucceeds in doing this, Bis prevented, for all practical purposes, from bringing
to the fore any issues that might in their resolution be seriously detrimental to A’s set of
preferences.
This ‘second face’ of power was intended to complement Dahl’s research agenda, broadening
the focus of research to include non-issues and the mechanisms that renders them such.
However, for the second face of power it is important ‘to distinguish the deliberately engi-
neered suppression of an issue from its unintended de facto exclusion’ (Bernhagen, 2002, p.
9) so that the absence of an issue from the political agenda is not assumed to be down to
power, when it could be due to such things as irrelevance, absurdity or lack of interest. The
most notable application of this idea of power was Crenson’s (1971) exploration of air
pollution in several US cities.
While warning that power is one of Gallie’s (1955) ‘essentially contested concepts’, Lukes
introduced the ‘third face’ of power. Utilising the insights of Gramsci and others, Lukes
developed an account of power that concerned ideological hegemony and existed alongside
both the first and second faces of power. Lukes (1974, p. 23), again following Dahl’s format,
puts it thus:
Amay exercise power over Bby getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also
exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants. Indeed, is
it not the supreme exercise of power to get another or others to have the desires you want
them to have – that is, to secure their compliance by controlling their thoughts and desires?
For Lukes, empirical research into the third dimension has to examine control over the
political agenda, the ‘real’ and subjective interests of people and attempts at indoctrination.
2TERRY HATHAWAY
© 2015 The Author.Politics © 2015 Political Studies Association
POLITICS: 2015 VOL ••(••)
To continue reading
Request your trial