Power and Contentment
| Author | James Doyle |
| Published date | 01 February 1998 |
| Date | 01 February 1998 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.00060 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
of the
ART
State
Power and Contentment
James Doyle
In a recent article in this journal (Politics
Lukes thus resurrects the spectre of false
Vol. 17 No. 1), Colin Hay rethinks the radical
consciousness which many had thought
conception of power developed by Steven
exorcised from contemporary social and
Lukes. Hay argues that the failure to keep
political theory. The problem with such a
analytical and normative questions distinct
formulation is the deeply condescending
means that Lukes mistakenly con¯ates the
conception of the social subject as an ideo-
identi®cation and critique of power relations.
logical dupe that it conjures up. Not only is
To circumvent this problem, Hay rede®nes
this wretched individual incapable of per-
the concept in terms which remove norma-
ceiving her/his true interests, paci®ed as s/
tive questions from the analysis of power. In
he is by the hallucinogenic eects of bour-
this article, the contention is that the de®ni-
geois indoctrination. But rising above the
tion proposed by Hay does not meet his
ideological mists which tame the masses is
objective. It is argued that, contrary to Hay
the enlightened academic who from his/her
and other critics, the radical conception of
high perch in the ivory tower may look
power can be made to work within the terms
down to discern the genuine interests of
originally articulated by Lukes.
those not similarly blessed (Hay, 1997,
pp.47±48).
Introduction
On the basis of this initial criticism, Hay
reformulates the concept of power. He distin-
In a recent essay, Colin Hay (1997) rethinks
guishes between power as conduct and con-
the three dimensional conception of power
text shaping. The latter is indirect, mediated
developed by Steven Lukes. He argues that
and emphasises the ways in which structures,
Lukes is `forced' to draw a problematic dis-
institutions and organisations shape the para-
tinction between subjective and objective
meters of action. The former is direct in that
interests which makes the identi®cation of
it is immediate, visible and behavioral. Power
third dimensional power value laden and
is exercised in the direct sense when A acts
unscienti®c. It also places the analyst in the
to shape the conduct of B. Both direct and
untenable position of being `supreme arbiter'
indirect power are de®ned by Hay without
of the interests of the `victims' of power.
reference to the notion of interests. This
According to Hay,
move is intended to circumvent the problem
James Doyle, Southampton Institute.
# Political Studies Association 1998. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK
and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
49
Power and Contentment . James Doyle
Politics (1998) 18(1) pp. 49±56
of objective interests and, in so doing, to
account but because his proposed method
make it possible to draw a sharp distinction
for locating power is at odds with the prac-
between the critique and identi®cation of
tical logic of its exercise. My conclusion is
power. Hay says,
that contrary to critics such as Benton, Clegg
and Hay, the methodological problems gener-
In short, the problems of Lukes' formula-
ated by the radical view can be successfully
tion reside in his failure to dierentiate
addressed within the analytical framework ori-
clearly between analytical questions con-
ginally set out by Lukes.
cerning the identi®cation of power within
social and political settings, and normative
questions concerning the critique of the
Lukes and the problem of
distribution and exercise of power thus
interests
identi®ed (Hay, 1997, p.50).
The ®rst question which needs to be asked is
In what follows, it will be argued that Hay is
this: why does Lukes incorporate the notion
mistaken in this criticism of the work of
of interests into his conception of power?
Lukes. Normative questions enter into the
Lukes begins his analysis with the claim that
analysis of power not primarily because Lukes
the common core to all conceptions of
is committed to critique, nor because he has
power is that A in some way aects B. Simple
in some sense been careless in allowing inter-
aecting is the notion which links dierent
ests to creep into his account, but for essen-
conceptions of power together. Had Lukes
tially two reasons. First, normative questions
not extended his analysis beyond this core
enter into the analysis of power because they
notion, he would have provided a de®nition
are an integral part of the logical grammar of
of power which, if not identical, is at least
the concept. That is, the concept is embed-
compatible with the notion of conduct shap-
ded in a normative and evaluative background
ing proposed by Hay. That is, the scope of
from which power relations are identi®ed or
the concept could have been expanded to
seen as the speci®c kind of social relations
include all forms of aecting irrespective of
they are. It will be argued in the ®rst section
the interests of the parties involved. There is
of this essay that the de®nition supplied by
a sense, therefore, in which Hay is providing
Hay simply substitutes a technical for a lay
little which is not already there in the work of
interest as the underlying evaluative basis
Lukes. The relevant question, however, is this:
from which to identify power relations. As
why does Lukes not take the option to
such, Hay is open to the same criticism that
expand the scope of the concept? To answer
he levels at Lukes.
this question, it may be useful ®rst to con-
Second, it may come as a surprise to
sider an example.
anyone who has followed the community
Suppose that the telephone rings and you
power debate that the notion of `false con-
instantly stop whatever you are doing and get
sciousness' can be so easily dismissed by Hay.
up to answer it. In doing so, your conduct
The problem is that `duping' others is internal
(or behaviour) has been shaped or aected
to the practical logic of the concept. The
by the caller. A counterfactual conditional is
practice of manipulation, for instance, trades
entailed since in responding to the call, you
in deception as well as the creation of false
did something that you would not otherwise
appearances and a distinction between pre-
have done. Had the caller not phoned, the
ferences and real interests. It is argued in the
claim is that you would not have stopped
second section that if the analysis provided
what you were doing at least, that is, to
by Lukes is mistaken, it is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial