Lukes on Power: One-, Two-, and Three-Dimensional Views (Notes)
2. THE ONE-DIMENSIONAL VIEW
Often labeled the pluralist view (a perspective suggesting power is widely distributed); Lukes argues this label can be misleading because pluralist conclusions depend on the concepts and methods used, not that the conclusions are pre-embedded in them.
Core claim: power is distributed across pluralist structures (systems where power is shared among many groups); e.g., in New Haven or the U.S. political system.
Lukes’ position: the one-dimensional view can yield non-pluralist conclusions if the view and method are applied differently.
Example: using the pluralist view and method, Robert McKenzie concluded power in the two main British parties is pyramidal (structured like a pyramid, with power concentrated at the top).
Samuel Beer, using a different view/method, concluded otherwise for the Labour Party.
One-dimensional view identified by its focus on observable outcomes (results that can be seen or measured) in decision-making and the actors (individuals or groups) who prevail (succeed or dominate).
Dahl’s intuitive idea of power (two formulations):
A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something B would not otherwise do.
A successfully gets B to do something he would not otherwise do (actual exercise of power).
Distinction: potential power (the ability to exert power) vs. exercised (actual) power (when power is actively used).
Dahl’s methodological approach (Who Governs? – a study of power in New Haven):
For each decision, determine who initiated alternatives (proposed different options) that were adopted, who vetoed others (rejected proposals), who proposed, etc.
Tabulate these actions as successes vs defeats; those with the greatest proportion of successes are deemed most influential (having the most power).
Pivotal takeaway (Polsby): in the pluralist approach (a method studying power distribution), study concrete outcomes (specific, observable results) to determine who prevails in community decision-making.
Emphasis: study concrete, observable behavior (actions that can be seen); use information from documents, informants, newspapers, etc.
Merelman’s summary of the pluralist method: study actual behavior (real actions), stress operational definitions (definitions that can be measured or observed), and look for evidence that meets scientific canons (standards).
Terminology note: among pluralists, power, influence, and related terms are often used interchangeably (as synonyms), based on the notion that a primitive concept (a basic, fundamental idea) underlies them all.
Dahl speaks of influence (the capacity to affect others); Polsby emphasizes power (the ability to control or affect others).
Central concern: the focus on observable decision-making (how decisions are visibly made) and conflict (disagreement or struggle) over key issues (important topics); conflict is treated as crucial for testing power attributions (assigning power to specific actors).
Important nuance: Dahl acknowledges power can operate without overt conflict (visible disagreement); he notes a rough test of influence by the frequency with which someone initiates/advances policies in the face of opposition or without opposition at all.
Key implication: the one-dimensional view treats interests (what people want or value) as policy preferences (choices regarding government action) that are conscious (aware), articulated (expressed), and expressed through political participation (involvement in political activities).
Important caveat: the one-dimensional view assumes visible, contestable disagreement (conflict) among groups is necessary to reveal power; it is not required by the formal definition of power, but is central to the empirical testing rhetoric (argumentation based on observation) of the pluralists.
Some critical notes in Lukes’ critique (criticisms):
The pluralists’ emphasis on behaviour may miss non-behavioural forms of power (e.g., shaping preferences, agenda setting – controlling which topics are discussed).
The text argues there can be power exercised in the absence of observable conflict and that the one-dimensional view cannot capture the full spectrum (range) of power dynamics (patterns of power).
3. THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL VIEW
Bachrach and Baratz critique (criticize) the one-dimensional view as restrictive (too limited); they argue power has two faces (two different aspects).
First face (as in the one-dimensional view): power is exercised when A participates in making decisions that affect B.
Second face (mobilisation of bias – the way existing values and practices favor certain issues and groups over others): A can create or reinforce social and political values and institutional practices that limit the political process to issues favorable to A, thereby excluding other issues from public consideration.
Central thesis (main argument): power is exercised when there is a mobilization of bias that systematically benefits some groups and disadvantages others.
Key quote (mobilisation of bias):
All forms of political organisation have a bias (a leaning or predisposition) in favour of exploiting some conflicts and suppressing others, because organisation is the mobilisation of bias. Some issues are organised into politics while others are organised out. ([34] p. 71)
Their two-dimensional typology of power (a classification into two types):
Coercion: A secures B's compliance (B doing what A wants) by threat of sanctions (punishments) when there is a conflict over values or action between A and B.
Influence: A causes B to change course without threats of deprivation (taking away something valuable).
Authority: B complies because A's command is reasonable within B's values; legitimacy (rightfulness) or legitimate procedure can justify the order.
Force: A achieves objectives (goals) when B resists by stripping the choice to comply or not; A overcomes B’s resistance. (Related to coercion but framed as a direct implementation of coercive power.)
Manipulation: an aspect or sub-concept of force; compliance occurs without recognition of the demand’s source or nature by the complier (the one who obeys).
The two faces are sometimes conflated (treated as the same); Bachrach and Baratz insist on distinguishing these forms and argue that power can operate through agenda control (controlling what issues are discussed) (mobilisation of bias) rather than only through overt decision-making (visible choices).
Nondecisions (decisions to suppress potential issues from becoming actual public debate): a central contribution to understanding power's second face. Nondecisions are not merely abstentions (not participating); they are observable decisions that suppress potential issues from entering the political arena (the public space for political discussion).
A satisfactory analysis combines both decision-making and nondecision-making: a complete account of power requires looking at how decisions are made and how potential issues are kept from being discussed or acted upon.
On boundaries and issues:
For pluralists, political issues are those that command attention in the political system (key issues).
For Bachrach and Baratz, important or key issues can be those that are prevented from being raised by nondecisions; issues can be potential (possible) rather than actual (real).
The same commitment to observable conflict remains: in Bachrach and Baratz’s view, nondecisions are observable decisions because they reflect the suppression of potential challenges to the status quo (the existing state of affairs).
The critique of the pluralists’ assumption about interests:
They reject the presumption of objectivity of interests (the idea that interests are inherently neutral or factual); instances of intraclass disagreement (disagreement within a social class) may reflect conflict of interests rather than harmony; information about actual behavior is crucial to challenging stratification theories (theories about social hierarchy).
In sum, the two-dimensional view partially transcends (goes beyond) the one-dimensional view by incorporating agenda-setting and exclusionary processes (actions that prevent issues from being discussed), but remains anchored in an interpretation of power as observable conflict and decision-making actions by individuals or groups.
4. THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL VIEW
Lukes presents the three-dimensional view as a further advance (improvement), but he also criticizes the two-dimensional view for being too narrowly behaviourist (focused only on observable behavior) and individualistic (focused only on individual actions).
Three major critiques of the two-dimensional view:
1) It remains too focused on overt/observable behaviour and does not adequately account for collective (group) and institutional (related to organizations or established practices) dimensions of power (aspects of power).
2) It overemphasizes conflict (disagreement as a necessary condition) as a prerequisite for the exercise of power; power can operate by shaping wants, preferences, and perceptions (how people understand things), not just by suppressing conflicts.
3) It treats nondecisions primarily as responses to identifiable grievances (specific complaints); but the absence of grievances does not necessarily indicate genuine consensus (widespread agreement) and may reflect successful power to shape cognition (thought processes) and perceptions.Key points about how power operates beyond individual decisions:
Power can be exercised by groups, institutions, and social structures (patterns of relationships in society) (collective action – actions taken by groups, systemic effects – effects of the entire system).
Nondecisions can be sustained through social and cultural patterns (established ways of behaving and thinking in a society), not only through explicit actions by leaders.
The mobilization of bias (the way existing values and practices favor certain issues and groups over others) can be maintained by organizational forms (structures of organizations) and social arrangements (ways society is structured) that persist even when individual decision-makers are not consciously acting; the bias can be reinforced by institutions and practices that constrain alternatives (limit available choices).
The three-dimensional view understands power as operating across three dimensions (aspects):
Dimension 1: Decision-making (visible conflicts and decisions) – who wins in specific decisions.
Dimension 2: Agenda-setting (controlling what issues are discussed) or control over the political agenda (nondecisions and the exclusion of issues) – who can define what counts as an issue.
Dimension 3: Shaping wants, beliefs, and perceptions (latent conflicts – underlying disagreements that are not openly expressed, and real interests – what truly benefits people, even if they don't realize it) – who controls the underlying preferences (choices) and perceptions (understandings) that guide interests; these may be manipulated (influenced deceptively) or shaped so that people accept the status quo (the current situation) as natural or legitimate.
Distinctions within the three-dimensional view:
Operative sense of power: A and B simultaneously influence outcomes (results); overdetermination (when multiple causes independently lead to the same effect) can occur when multiple sufficient conditions (conditions that are enough to cause an effect) produce the same result, making it impossible to attribute the outcome to a single actor. \text{Operative power: (A \text{ and } A_1)
\rightarrow B \text{ changes} with the same result as any one alone}Effective sense of power: A single actor’s intervention (involvement) distorts (changes in a misleading way) the normal course of events to produce a desired outcome; A’s action makes a difference to the result.
Successful exercise of power (control): When B does what A desires, aligning with A’s wishes; this is the focus of Bachrach & Baratz's analysis, but Lukes notes it as only one subtype (smaller category) of power in a broader taxonomy (classification system).
The counterfactual basis (relying on what-if scenarios) for attributing power (assigning power):
Any claim that power has been exercised (effective or operative) relies on counterfactual reasoning (thinking about what would have happened if something else had been true): but for A (or A together with other conditions), would B have thought or acted differently?
We must specify mechanisms (processes or means) by which A prevents or redirects B’s actions or thoughts to produce the observed outcome.
Crenson’s UnPolitics of Air Pollution (a study of how environmental issues are suppressed) as a bridge between the two and three-dimensional views:
Crenson asks why some cities fail to raise the issue of air pollution: the proper object (focus) is political inactivity (lack of political action), not political activity (engagement in politics). \text{Object of study: political inactivity}$$
Findings from East Chicago vs. Gary:
Gary (U.S. Steel-dominated, strong party organization) delayed and limited pollution discourse (discussion); East Chicago (more diverse steel presence, weaker party organization) enacted pollution controls earlier.
U.S. Steel’s influence was largely reputational (based on reputation) and indirect (not direct); the company’s inaction or evasive (avoiding) responses influenced policy content (what policies contained) without direct interventions (direct involvement).
Crenson’s generalized claim: industry’s reputation for power can dampen issue life chances (reduce the likelihood an issue will gain attention); where industry remains silent, pollution issues struggle; strong party organizations can either suppress or purchase influence to shape outcomes.
Interconnectedness of issues: political issues are interconnected (linked together); promoting one issue can push others away; a city’s political form (its structure of government) can channel (direct) or constrain (limit) multiple issues simultaneously.
Crenson’s broader claim: political openness or pluralism is not guaranteed; nondecisions are powerful mechanisms that channel and limit political activity; local political institutions can systematically shape what citizens care about and how they articulate concerns (express their worries).
Three-dimensional view in action (Crenson as exemplar – a typical example):
Not purely reputational; includes institutional power (power based on an institution's structure) and the role of inaction (what U.S. Steel did not do) as a mechanism of power.
Demonstrates how local political institutions can constrain political consciousness (awareness of political issues) and limit minority voices from becoming majority political concerns (issues supported by most people).
Indicates a broader, more systemic approach to power (an approach considering the whole system) that integrates individual actions, organizational structures, and ideological patterns (sets of beliefs).
Three-dimensional view’s distinctive contributions (unique points):
It rejects the assumption that power is exclusively exercised through direct, observable conflict; it allows for latent conflicts (hidden disagreements) and nonconscious shaping of preferences (influencing desires without people realizing it).
It emphasizes the role of collective forces (group actions) and social arrangements (how society is organized) (not just individuals) in sustaining power.
It provides a more comprehensive framework (a broader model) for explaining why certain issues fail to become political problems in the first place, and how routine politics can suppress potential challenges.
Summary of the three views (as Lukes presents them):
One-Dimensional View
Focus: observable behaviour; decision-making; key issues; overt conflict (visible disagreement); policy-preference interests (interests expressed as choices for policies).
Two-Dimensional View
Focus: decision-making and nondecision-making; issues and potential issues; overt or covert conflict (hidden disagreement); policy preferences or grievances (complaints).
Three-Dimensional View
Focus: decision-making and control over the political agenda (not necessarily through decisions); issues and potential issues; observable (overt/covert) and latent conflict; subjective (individual-based) and real interests (what truly benefits someone).
Final note on the three-dimensional view:
It is not a rejection of empirical investigation (research based on observation or experience) into power; it expands the scope (range) to include non-acting structures (structures that exert influence without explicit action), ideology (a system of ideas and ideals), and systemic processes (processes involving the entire system) that shape political life.
7. THE THREE VIEWS COMPARED
Strengths of the one-dimensional (decision-making) view:
Clarity and concreteness (being specific and real): it measures actual decisions and who initiates, vetoes, or proposes alternatives.
Useful for illustrating how competition among citizens can influence governance (the act of governing) via elections and institutional responsiveness (how well institutions react to public needs).
Weaknesses of the one-dimensional view:
It may reproduce the bias of the system under study by focusing exclusively on decisions and visible outcomes.
It may miss less visible, yet powerful forms of control that limit which decisions are even considered (agenda-setting and nondecisions).
Indirect influence (influence that is not direct) and agenda manipulation (controlling what issues are discussed) can occur without visible changes in decisions, potentially benefiting elites (powerful, privileged groups).
Strengths of the two-dimensional view:
Adds agenda-setting (controlling what issues are discussed) and exclusion (nondecisions) to the analysis, thereby capturing how power can constrain (limit) what issues are even discussed.
Introduces the concept of mobilization of bias (the way existing values and practices favor certain issues and groups over others), offering a framework (a basic structure) to analyze how institutions and values shape the political process.
Provides a more nuanced (subtle and detailed) account of power that includes coercion, influence, authority, force, and manipulation.
Weaknesses of the two-dimensional view:
Still too focused on observable outcomes and individuals; underplays the role of collective action (actions taken by groups) and systemic structures (arrangements of the whole system).
Tends to treat nondecisions as observable, but can still miss the deeper processes that shape desires and perceptions.
Can overemphasize conflict as necessary for power, ignoring nonconflict-based mechanisms (e.g., ideological control – control through ideas, cognitive manipulation – influencing people's thoughts).
Strengths of the three-dimensional view:
Offers a comprehensive framework (a complete model) that includes decisions, agenda control, and the shaping of wants and beliefs.
Argues for the significance of latent conflicts (hidden disagreements) and the possibility that power operates through ideology (systems of beliefs), institutions, and social structures, not just through overt actions (visible actions).
Integrates collective and systemic power (power that comes from the overall system), not just individual or elite actions.
Weaknesses or challenges of the three-dimensional view:
More difficult to operationalize (define or measure in practical terms) and test empirically (through observation or experiment) due to its breadth (wide scope) (requires deeper analysis of institutions, culture, and cognition (mental processes)).
Requires careful specification of mechanisms (processes) and counterfactuals (what-if scenarios) to attribute power in latent dimensions (hidden aspects).
Crenson’s contribution (illustrative and empirical):
Local politics and nondecision-making matter; pollution control illustrates how industry power can suppress public concerns without overt action.
Power can be reputational (a “power reputation”) that shapes outcomes without direct intervention.
Political issues tend to be interconnected (linked); addressing one issue can shift others, challenging the idea that issues rise and fall independently.
Local form of government and party organization influence openness to new issues and the life chances of those issues.
Practical and ethical implications:
Recognition that power can operate through shaping perceptions and limiting what people think is possible or desirable, not just through coercion or overt policy actions.
Policy debates should consider how frames (ways of presenting information), information control, and institutional practices (established ways institutions operate) influence which issues emerge, persist, or disappear.
Understanding these dynamics can inform democratic accountability (how well democratic systems are responsible), governance reforms (changes to how things are governed), and civil society strategies (plans by non-governmental groups) for broader participation.
Key takeaways for exam prep:
Distinguish clearly between the three dimensions: decisions, agenda control (nondecisions), and shaping wants/interests (latent conflicts).
Remember the terms: coercion, influence, authority, force, manipulation, and nondecisions (as observable decisions about exclusion).
Be able to explain how Crenson’s air-pollution case illustrates nondecision-making, reputational power, and the interconnection of policy issues.
Be prepared to discuss the methodological challenges (difficulties in methods) of studying non-events and latent conflict, including counterfactual reasoning and mechanism identification (identifying the processes at play).
References and footnotes to keep in mind:
Dahl’s early work: The Concept of Power; Who Governs?
Polsby on the pluralist methodology (method for studying power distribution) and the study of concrete outcomes.
Schattschneider on the mobilization of bias (the way existing values and practices favor certain issues and groups over others).
Nozick on coercion (context for coercive power).
Dahrendorf’s distinction between objective vs latent interests (to contrast with Lukes’ own framing of latent vs real interests).
Crenson, The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities (case studies of Gary vs East Chicago).
Overall connection to broader themes in political theory:
The evolution from a behavior-focused, observable-decision paradigm (a model centered on visible actions and decisions) toward recognizing agenda-setting, bias, and ideologies as central to power.
The shift from individualistic explanations of power to collective and structural explanations (explanations focusing on groups and societal structures).
The ethical and practical significance (importance) of understanding how power can operate without overt conflict or visible action, shaping citizens’ perceptions and the political landscape (the overall political situation).