Theorists of Power’s Three Faces

Among the best-known contributions to the power debate were arguments advanced by theorists of power’s three faces which started with a critique of the definition of power by Dahl as set of behaviors A can elicit from B (Hayward, 1998). Then came Steven Lukes’s three- dimensional account of power: A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests. He asserted that power does not only enable actors to act as they like, but can also shape the mechanisms through which they perceive their wants (Lukes, 2005).

Lukes took the debate to another level, and John Gaventa unlocked the barriers to the study of power’s hidden faces by demonstrating the ways in which non-decision making power works through institutional practices (Hayward, 1998). Demonstrating how power works in the United State public education system, Hayward refuted Lukes’s concept about power and made claims for defacing power.

She argued that power relations at a predominantly white suburban school (Fair View Elementary School in Connecticut) are characterized by significant restrictions on political freedom, and this restriction is promoted by the social practices and institutions that produce the world of Fair View (Hayward, 2000).

Get quality help now

RhizMan

Verified writer

Proficient in: Power

4.9 (247)

“ Rhizman is absolutely amazing at what he does . I highly recommend him if you need an assignment done ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

Her idea of defacing power centers on notion of freedom, and its absence or restriction through social practices and institutions. According to Hayward, powers mechanisms consist in laws, rules, norms, customs, social identities, and standards that constraint and enable inter-and intra-subjective action (Hayward, 1998). Instead of focusing more on actors and their actions, she proposes that our focus should be on the boundaries shaping key practices and institutions.

Michel Foucault’s concept about power during his early work on institutions varies with his that of his later work on governmentality (Foucault, 1975).

His earlier work gave a better understanding of how power somehow inheres in institutions rather in the architects or drivers of those institutions. He uses the prison system as a sovereign institution, where principles of order and control tends to influence power. It seems as if power inheres in our prisons, schools, and other institutions. He argued that power does not exist if it is not put into action. Some of Hayward’s arguments and critiques focused on Foucault’s concept of power who saw modern society as a disciplinary society where power is exercised in our institutions (prisons, militaries, etc.).

In Foucault’s opinion, rather than seeing power as the ability of an agent to impose his will over that of the powerless (power possession), power is not owned. Power is more of a strategy. It circulates, and works like a chain. It is employed and exercised through a netlike organization, where individuals are the vehicles and not its points of application (Foucault, 1980). In contrast to Marxist interpretations of power relations, Foucault took the extra step to see how power operates in the daily interactions of individuals and institutions. Consequently, he studied how different institutions use their power on the powerless, and how domination and resistance occurs as an effect of the exertion of power. Foucault asserted that there are many different forms of power relations, which can occur in family relations, or within an institution, or an organization (Foucault, 1988).

When examining power, it is important to focus on institutional actors and the overarching processes such as governance (Larkin and Clark, 2017). As a result, understanding the problems of refugees during conflicts must entail the underlining institutional and social powers. In Somalia, most Somali Bantus were illiterates, and were treated as second-class citizens and excluded from many economic, social, and political opportunities (Bjork, 2016).