Power and Powerlessness: Notes on Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley

1 Power and Participation

  • Study about quiescence and rebellion in a context of glaring inequality
  • Key questions:
    • Why does challenge to domination not occur in certain social relationships (non-élite dominated by an élite)?
    • What situational factors prevent grievances from arising or being voiced?
    • Why does quiescence prevail in oppressed communities even when upheaval seems intuitive?
    • Under what conditions does rebellion begin to emerge?
  • Relevance to theory:
    • touches both classical democratic and Marxist perspectives on the need for widespread participation and challenge to counter inequality
    • contrasts with conservative theories that view quiescence as legitimacy or stability
    • engages debates associated with neo-élitism and critiques by Mills and others
  • Evolution of debate in U.S. political sociology:
    • shift from emphasizing participation to explaining non-participation
    • neo-élitist views contrasted with critiques emphasizing the politics of power and non-decision making
  • Overall aim of the chapter:
    • develop a three-dimensional model of power (and powerlessness) to understand quiescence and the emergence of challenge
    • sketch empirical methodology for applying the model to a Central Appalachian Valley (and beyond)
  • Core connected questions:
    • What is the nature of power?
    • How do power and powerlessness shape political actions and conceptions of a non-élite?

1.1 The Nature of Power and Roots of Quiescence

  • The One-Dimensional Approach (pluralist view)
    • Dahl: Power as A over B to the extent B does something B would not otherwise do
    • Polsby: power can be studied by who participates, who gains/loses, who prevails in decision-making
    • Key assumptions:
    • grievances are recognized and acted upon
    • decision-making arenas are open to virtually any organized group
    • political action occurs by individuals or leaders on behalf of groups
    • Consequences of these assumptions:
    • non-participation or inaction is not inherently a political problem under this view
    • leads to class-bound conclusions if applied strictly to deprived groups
    • Distinctions in Dahl’s framework:
    • homo politicus (activist) vs homo civicus (non-activist) who may prefer other activities to political action
    • Critiques of the one-dimensional view:
    • it risks explaining away non-participation as inertia or lack of interest
    • can imply that class consciousness does not develop because participation would be inefficient or unnecessary
    • Implications:
    • because power is treated as separate from quiescence, non-participation is not inherently a problem,
    • but the approach may misread the power dynamics in deprived communities if applied uncritically
  • The Two-Dimensional Approach (power to exclude as well as to decide)
    • Schattschneider criticized the tendency to blame the victims for nonparticipation
    • Key insight: absenteeism can reflect suppression of options and alternatives reflecting the needs of nonparticipants
    • Core idea: “mobilization of bias” – organizational bias that favors some conflicts and suppresses others
    • Non-decisions as a hallmark: issues are prevented from entering the political arena; some decisions never reach the table
    • Bakcground examples:
    • Crenson’s The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: perceived industrial influence can prevent action without the industry taking action
    • Parenti’s Newark study: power heterogeneity in city hall can predefine the agenda and dampen lower-class claims
    • Findings across cases:
    • patterns of participation and non-participation relate more to fear, vulnerability, or the pre-determination of agenda than pure apathy
    • Limitations of this view:
    • it still leaves open how power may affect conceptions of grievances themselves (i.e., what counts as a grievance)
    • Lukes argues that even if observable conflict is minimized, power can still shape whether conflicts arise or are perceived as legitimate
    • Evolution of the argument:
    • this view shifts the focus to the agenda-setting and framing power of elites, not just their ability to win conflicts
  • The Three-Dimensional Approach (Lukes’ expanded power concept)
    • Lukes’ definition: A exercises power over B when A affects B in a way contrary to B’s interests
    • Three dimensions:
    • Dimension 1: A prevails in resolving conflicts (observable conflict, bargaining over issues)
    • Dimension 2: A shapes or determines the very formation of issues (mobilization of bias, exclusion of alternatives, non-decisions)
    • Dimension 3: A shapes B’s very perceptions of interests and possible actions (latent conflict; influencing beliefs, symbols, and ideologies; influencing what counts as a grievance)
    • Core claim: power can operate even without observable conflict, by preventing conflict from arising or reframing it
    • Implications for research:
    • need to examine not only who wins in debates but also how power shapes what counts as a grievance and how people think about their own interests
    • integration of social forces (hegemony) and ideological production (Gramsci, Milliband) into explanations of participation
    • Current status in Gaventa’s book:
    • the three-dimensional view offers a comprehensive framework that could unify the other two approaches while guiding empirical testing
  • Summary of implications for participation and quiescence
    • Power relations can both produce quiescence and enable rebellion
    • The dimensional framework helps explain why deprived groups may appear quiet even when grievances exist
    • The framework invites empirical testing and cross-case comparison to identify how dimensions interact in any given context

1.2 The Mechanisms of Power

  • First Dimension: observable power in bargaining over key issues
    • Mechanisms consist of political resources that A can mobilize: votes, jobs, influence
    • Effectiveness depends on personal efficacy, experience, organizational strength, and coordination
  • Second Dimension: mobilization of bias
    • Mobilization of bias includes:
    • a set of predominant values, beliefs, rituals, and procedural rules that favor some groups
    • these routines operate to the benefit of powerful actors and against others
    • Non-decision-making (the core concept): decisions that suppress, thwart, or exclude potential challenges before they reach the decision-making arena
    • Forms of suppression and control include:
    • force or sanctions (threats, intimidation, coercion)
    • co-optation or incentives to align with dominant interests
    • invoking existing biases, norms, precedents, or procedures to squelch challenges
    • reshaping or strengthening the mobilization of bias through new barriers or symbols against challengers
    • Additional forms of non-decision-making:
    • decisionless decisions (inaction by institutions)
    • rule of anticipated reactions (decreasing demands because of fear of sanctions)
  • Third Dimension: shaping beliefs, perceptions, and consciousness
    • Mechanisms include:
    • control of information, mass media, and socialization processes
    • creation of social legitimations that normalize the dominance of A
    • influence of social myths, language, and symbols that rationalize or naturalize the status quo
    • Direct forms of influence (observable):
    • information control, media influence, and educational/cultural socialization that maintain dominance
    • Indirect or psychological forms (often less visible but pervasive):
    • adaptive responses among the powerless (fatalism, self-deprecation, apathy)
    • internalization of dominant values and norms (acceptance of the status quo as legitimate)
    • relationship between participation and political consciousness (participation can raise consciousness, or higher consciousness can lead to participation or not)
    • Freire’s “culture of silence” in which dependent societies may lack authentic voice and reflect the metropolis’ norms
    • multiple consciousness (Garson): overlays and contextual shifts in consciousness, enabling manipulation across contexts
    • Colonial and international analogies:
    • colonization processes involve hegemony and the mobilization of bias, plus the internalization of alien norms (Memmi, Balandier)
    • third-dimension dynamics can legitimize domination through ideological and cultural means
  • Interrelation of the dimensions
    • Power in one dimension reinforces the others and vice versa
    • Powerlessness in B is accumulative and reinforces quiescence; as A prevails, more barriers are built, further limiting B’s action
    • The three dimensions form a feedback loop that sustains quiescence unless a shift occurs (e.g., challenge, organization, resources)
    • Understanding these mechanisms helps explain why a generalized pattern of quiescence can persist and how a rebellion can eventually emerge if power relations shift

1.3 Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion — A Tentative Relationship

  • Core idea: power dynamics shape both the likelihood of quiescence and the emergence of rebellion
  • A’s power-to-prevail in the first dimension leads to:
    • accumulation of surplus resources that can be used to construct barriers around decision arenas (second dimension)
    • development of dominant images, legitimations, or beliefs about A’s power (third dimension) via control of media and socialization
  • Power and powerlessness are interrelated and accumulative
    • repeated defeats in decision-making arenas reinforce B’s cessation of challenge due to anticipation of defeat
    • inaction by B strengthens A’s ability to maintain barriers and myths, increasing A’s future advantage
    • inaction by B frees A to devote more energy to strengthening barriers and legitimations, further entrenching quiescence
  • The path to rebellion involves sequential shifts and counter-movements:
    • B must overcome powerlessness and mobilize effective challenge across issue formation, mobilization of action, and decision-making
    • B must accumulate real and symbolic resources to wage conflict (organizational capacity, consciousness, etc.)
    • overcoming barriers in the second and third dimensions precedes successful challenge in the first dimension
  • Dynamics of alliance and social change:
    • A may ally with A’ on common interests to counter B’s challenges
    • B may need to ally with B’ to mount a broader challenge against A
    • patterns of quiescence, once broken on one grievance, may enable transferable momentum to other issues and targets
  • Pocock’s historical analogy:
    • power, once acquired, is often maintained through inaction and the precondition to imposition rather than direct exertion
    • examples include ruler dynamics where rulers govern by maintaining unresolved problems for others
  • Takeaway:
    • rebellion is plausible when a shift in power relationships reduces A’s advantages or increases B’s capabilities; yet before conflict becomes visible, B must navigate issue formulation, mobilization, and action, while counteracting A’s barriers

1.4 Methodological Considerations

  • The empirical task: test whether the three-dimensional model can illuminate power, participation, and quiescence in a real setting (e.g., Central Appalachia)
  • Methodological challenges:
    • measuring non-events and non-decisions (how to observe what does not happen)
    • identifying hidden power and counterfactuals (what B would do if power shifted)
    • distinguishing between genuine consensus and falsely manufactured consensus
  • Broad guidelines for empirical study (Frey's guidance referenced):
    • non-issues occur when glaring inequalities exist and there is no ameliorative response by those with less value
    • avoid assuming activism is the default; instead, consider that action would occur if not for power relations
  • Steps to apply the model empirically:
    • look beyond decision-making arenas to gather data from non-actors, communities, and everyday life
    • analyze historical development of apparent consensus to determine whether it arose by choice or power shaping
    • study communication, socialization, and acculturation processes to identify links between powerholders’ actions/ideologies and powerless actors’ beliefs and actions
    • assess whether conditions exist that could enable the powerless to develop consciousness and pursue challenges
    • explore the role of third parties, new resources, and interventions that could alter power dynamics
  • Criteria for identifying power mechanisms:
    • observe processes in abnormal times when power is weakened or removed
    • analyze how alternative opportunities or external assistance influence actions and consciousness
    • compare similarly deprived groups facing different power relations to see variations in response
  • If no mechanisms or counterfactuals can be demonstrated, conclude that apparent quiescence may reflect a genuine consensus or value system among the deprived group
  • Advantages of the three-dimensional methodology:
    • it can yield falsifiable conclusions about the dimension(s) at play in a given situation
    • it allows classification of a case as predominantly one-, two-, or three-dimensional in nature
  • Key definitional notes (needed for analysis):
    • interests: what B would pursue if free from power constraints
    • consciousness: the state of awareness about interests, power, and potential actions; not a simple measure of truth or falsehood
    • consensus: whether the apparent agreement reflects genuine shared understanding or a manufactured alignment due to power processes
  • Examples and application scope:
    • Open, industrial democracies may pose challenges for detecting second- and third-dimension power, but observational strategies can still reveal underlying dynamics
    • Closed or colonial societies (emblems: plantation South, colonial contexts) offer clearer evidence of hidden faces of power; such cases illustrate false consciousness and the mobilization of bias
  • Endnote on scope:
    • the author proposes applying the framework to Central Appalachia, a relatively under-developed region within the United States, to illuminate how power and powerlessness shape political action in a modern industrial democracy

Connections and overall significance

  • The three-dimensional power framework unites concerns about participation, non-participation, and political outcomes by showing how power can operate beyond visible conflict
  • The model emphasizes the interdependence of actions, ideologies, and social structures in producing quiescence or rebellion
  • It foregrounds empirical testing and methodological rigor, arguing for data gathered from both actors and non-actors, across time and contexts
  • Ethical and practical implications:
    • recognizing the multiple ways in which power suppresses or enables political action can inform strategies for democratic reform and social justice
    • understanding culture of silence and internalization helps explain why marginalized groups may resist or defer action, guiding more effective community organizing and policy intervention

Key terms and concepts (quick reference)

  • Power dimensions: first (decision-making), second (mobilization of bias/non-decisions), third (shaping consciousness)
  • Mobilization of bias: systematic bias in institutions and procedures favoring some groups over others
  • Non-decisions: decisions that prevent issues from entering the political arena
  • Culture of silence: Freire’s concept of a dependent society that lacks authentic political voice
  • False/latent consensus: the risk that consensus is manufactured or lacks true awareness of interests
  • Hegemony (Gramsci) and ideological predominance: how dominance is maintained through ideas and norms, not just force
  • Third-dimensional mechanisms: information control, symbols, myths, education, and socialization that legitimize power
  • Quiescence vs rebellion: a dynamic relationship where quiescence can give way to challenge under shifting power relations
  • Methodological pluralism vs three-dimensional approach: a methodological toolkit for studying power beyond surface-level conflict

Closing note

  • The chapter lays a theoretical and methodological foundation for studying inequality, participation, and political action in Central Appalachia and similar settings, arguing that power operates across interrelated dimensions to produce quiescence or spark rebellion.