Frameworks of Power
Publication Year: 1989
“Both a comprehensive historical and theoretical overview of the concept of power, and a substantive and original contribution to debates in that literature…Clegg has succeeded remarkably well on both counts. First, his book is a wide-ranging and nuanced overview and critique of theories of power stretching from Hobbes to Foucault. Second, Clegg spends the last third of the book presenting an alternative conception of power that is both theoretically sophisticated and powerfully insightful. Clegg provides insightful and evocative critiques of many of the standard debates on power, although his reading of Gidden's structuration theory should be of particular interest to communication scholars.”–Communication Theory “This book can be read in a variety of ways. The early chapters will serve very well as a more-than-just-a-textbook guide to ...
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Frameworks of Power: An Overview of the Argument
- Hobbes and Machiavelli as Precursors of Power
- Power and Agency in the ‘Community Power Debate’
- Power and Intention
- Non-Decision, Mobilization of Bias and the Two Faces of Power
- Power and Three Dimensions: A Radical View
- Agency and Structure in the Analysis of Power
- Dominant Ideology and Disciplinary Power
- Circuits of Power
- Chapter 2: Power: Traditional Roots, Modern Problems
- Hobbes' Myth
- Hobbes' Choice and its Conceptual Extension
- Machiavelli: The Contrast with Hobbes
- Metaphors for Moderns: Hobbes and Machiavelli
- Chapter 3: Political Community, Methodological Procedures and the Agency Model
- Metaphorical Continuities
- Classical Elitism
- Floyd Hunter and the Community Power Elite
- Dahl's Methodological Challenge to Contemporary Elitism
- Dahl's Critique of the Ruling Elite Model
- Newton's Critique of the Pluralist Model
- Chapter 4: The Power of Intention
- Some Stories about Power
- Elaborating Stories
- Russell, Weber and Wrong: The Power of Intention
- Bachrach and Baratz: The Two Faces of Power?
- Is Power Something Actualized or Not?
- Chapter 5: Lukes' Dimensions and Epistemology
- Lukes' Three-Dimensional Model and the Centrality of ‘Interests’
- Habermas: Real Interests in Ideal Speech Situations
- Benton and the ‘Paradox of Emancipation’
- Lukes' Model of Power and Structure
- Power, Interests and Hegemony: Gaventa and Whitt
- Interests and Epistemology
- Realism, Causal Powers and Objectives
- Chapter 6: Giddens' Critique of Parsons and the Duality of Structure
- Parsons' Power
- Habermas on Parsons on Power
- Giddens on Parsons on Power
- Giddens' Duality of Structure
- Chapter 7: Post-structuralism, Sovereign Power and Disciplinary Power
- Post-Structuralism and Foucault
- Disciplinary Power, Bio-Power and Sovereign Power
- Sovereign Power and its Conceptual Over-Extension into Dominant Ideology
- Disciplinary Power and the Dissolution of the Sovereign Power Conception
- From Structural Ideology to Post-Structuralist Hegemony in Laclau and Mouffe
- Radical Conceptions of Power Compared
- Chapter 8: Circuits of Power: a Framework for Analysis
- Power in Organizations
- Mechanisms of Power: Disciplinary Practices of Surveillance
- Organization and Agency
- Strategic Agency
- The Reformation of Power: The Contributions of Callon, Latour and Colleagues
- Power and Resistance
- Rules and Power
- Episodic Agency Power: The ‘Normal Power’ of Social Science
- Organizational Outflanking of Resistance: Mann's Contribution
- Social Integration and System Integration: Dispositional and Facilitative Power Respectively
- Chapter 9: Constituting Circuits of Power in Modernity
- Urbanism as a Feudal Nodal Point
- Centralized States and the Emergence of ‘Public’ Administration
- Markets and States and Power
- The Modern Constitutional Nation State
© Stewart R. Clegg 1989
First published 1989
Reprinted 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publishers:
SAGE Publications Ltd
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications Inc
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
32, M-Block Market
Greater Kailash - I
New Delhi 110 048
British Library Cataloguing in publication data
Clegg, Stewart, 1947-
Frameworks of power.
I. Power. Social aspects
ISBN 0-8039-8 161-9 Pbk
Library of Congress catalog card number 89-60996
Typeset by The Word Shop, Rossendale, Lancashire
Printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wiltshire
For Bill and Joyce who made it all possible; for Lynne, Jonathan and William with whom it was shared and who make everything worthwhile.[Page vi]
I would like to acknowledge all who have aided me in writing this book. First, some universities, chief amongst which are the University of New England, which allowed me study leave to be able to work on this, among other projects, and the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, whose Department of Management invited me to spend some time with them while I was completing the book. The period which I spent there during the latter part of 1988 will long be remembered for not only the warmth and friendship of individuals but also the stimulation of the intellectual environment. In addition, towards the end of 1988 when I was making late revisions to the manuscript, I was fortunate to be able to use the excellent facilities provided by the Department of Social Policy and Sociology at the University of Leeds. The final revisions were undertaken in Hong Kong during the first few weeks of 1989, when I was a Visiting Professor in the University of Hong Kong, Department of Management Studies. The customary warmth and collegiality of the department, particularly in the form of Gordon Redding, with whom I was at the time collaborating on another project, were, as always, stimulating. Second, I would like to acknowledge some institutions. The ones I have in mind, like most enjoyable institutions, are really loose networks of people, the most immediate of which are the Australian and Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies (APROS) whose colloquia and seminars over the years have been a real example of collegial scholarship and exchange of ideas, even between antagonists. Thanks of more distant lineage should also be expressed to the European Group for Organization Studies (EGOS) under whose auspices much of the initial background for this book was acquired. Third, I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to some places and to some of the people who were there at the time that I passed through. Although they have not entered into the production of this volume in any direct way at all, without them it would never have been attempted. I refer to the Grammar School, Eiland, Yorkshire and the [Page xii]Universities of Bradford and Aston, Griffith University, Brisbane; and the International Institute of Management in Berlin. As so much knowledge is institutionally sustained and yet not acknowledged as such, I wish to take this opportunity to place my appreciation on record.
The people whom I wish to thank are many, and I mention them in no particular order. Over the last decade I've probably spent more time working with Paul Boreham and Geoff Dow than anyone else. They have been an enduring source of discussion and issues with which to grapple. The other collaborators with whom I have worked chiefly during this period have been Winton Higgins and Wai-Fong Chua from whom I have also learned a great deal. John Western has been a good friend and colleague for a long time. Some of the issues canvassed in the book have arisen in the course of our collaboration both as editors and researchers. Another member of the small group of scholars with whom I have worked in Brisbane over the years is Mike Emmison. Some of our discussions and collaboration have entered this book.
For more years than any of us would wish to recall, Zygmunt Bauman, David Hickson and David Silverman have been among my correspondents, sources of friendship, and occasional visitors from the UK. It would be hard not to have learned something from them over all the years and I hope that I have not failed in this respect. Similarly, I have profited greatly from the friendship and exchange of ideas with Peter Blunt, Barry Hindess, Bob Holton, Jane Marceau, Michael Pusey and Bryan Turner in recent years. I would like to thank Stuart Hall for the page numbers. In the Department of Sociology at the University of New England, Ellie Vasta and I spent many hours discussing issues connected with feminist and post-structuralist theory which have found an echo here. In addition, with respect to aspects of this particular project, Elim Papadakis, Peter Lucich, Alan Black and Uma Pandey have freely shared time and patience with me, while John Girdwood enthused me with his fascination for Foucault although he was never able to entice me on to the Mille Plateau with him. Jim Bell was always punctilious in not distracting me from this project and I appreciate that very much indeed. Trish Marshall and Ros Mortimer were extremely efficient in the initial word-processing of this manuscript which greatly aided my subsequent revision at the keyboard. I do not think one could have had a more congenial environment in which to work than that provided by the Department of Sociology at the University of New England.
It is appropriate to acknowledge the prior publication of some of the ideas in this book in earlier papers. There is some use made in chapter seven of arguments which were first advanced in a paper co-authored with Mike Emmison and Paul Boreham. The paper was called ‘Against Antinomies: For a Post-Marxist Politics’ and was published by Thesis Eleven (18: 124–42, 1987/88). Some of chapter eight comprises material contained in a paper published in Organization Studies, volume 10, number 1, pages 101–19 as ‘Radical Revisions: Power, Discipline and Organization’. [Page xiii]With these exceptions the remainder of the book makes its first appearance here.
A number of colleagues have been kind enough to share their assessment of the manuscript with me in order that I might improve it as a result of their comments. In particular, Malcolm Lewis and Ralph Stablein, colleagues from the Department of Management at the University of Otago, read and discussed the manuscript with me as it evolved during the time that I spent there and I thank them sincerely for doing so. I gained a great deal from our discussions. Others who commented on the manuscript include David Hickson, David Silverman, Zygmunt Bauman, Winton Higgins, Barry Hindess, Lucien Karpik, Richard Hall, John Mayer, John Child, Ric Collignon, Tony Spybey, Gary Hamilton and Derek Layder. As with all of the good advice and support that kind people and institutions have offered over the years, I am sure that I probably did not heed nearly enough of it: indeed, I know that I did not, particularly as I tried to effect closure on the project of writing - something which the Macintosh SE makes difficult! Consequently, the usual clause applies: no one of those mentioned is in any way responsible for what I have written. That responsibility still lies with the notion of the author.[Page xiv]
This began as a book about a concept and its application, but it became a book about a set of family relationships between some closely related but nevertheless differentiated concepts. There is no such thing as a single all-embracing concept of power per se but there are at least three family groupings clustered around loci of dispositional, agency, and facilitative concepts of power. To bring these into a set of ordered relationships with each other, a concept of circuits of power has been proposed. The book is not exhaustive of debates around power, this most ‘contested’ of concepts, but it does chart the main contours of debate in the English-speaking world particularly as they have developed in the recent past. It then applies its own conception to some recent ‘sociology of the state’.
At the heart of the present book stands another. Steven Lukes' (1974) book, Power: A Radical View, has been one of the most widely used social science books of the last decade. It addressed problems involved in the analysis of power as well as offering an elegant model for their solution. However, not even the best books can transcend the temporal nature of the debates in which they are involved. Lukes' book was very clearly rooted in some central problems generated for power analysis in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At the core of these questions were notions of ‘non-decision making’ and ‘non-issues’, an agenda ambiguously coupled with a concern with a core concept of ‘Western Marxism’, that of ‘hegemony’. While this agenda is still with us, it has of late been joined by other concerns which have developed with more recent debate. These debates, while not addressed in Lukes' text, certainly have some significance for the analysis of power. Amongst these have been debates centred on the claims of a realist epistemology of science as well as others drawing from post-structuralism and a Foucauldian conception of power. Consequently, certain problems confront one with reference to Lukes' text as a contemporary tool. While it remains a clear and reliable guide to certain central debates, unfortunately it has been increasingly bypassed by [Page xvi]more recent developments which pose a challenge to its analysis of power. Lukes' ‘radical’ three-dimensional model of power was explicitly premised upon an ethically liberal concept of agency, and it implicitly invoked Humean notions of causality. The difficulties in reconciling such views with perspectives which undercut their assumptions will be evident. Recent developments increasingly have sought to achieve this ‘undercutting’. For instance, it will be seen that post-structuralism is not easily amenable to concerns that centre on a strongly articulated ‘agency’ perspective other than from a position of opposition. Equally difficult to relate coherently is the renewed debate which has occurred around the ashes of ‘structural Marxism’.
The rationale for writing this book derived from the experience of teaching courses concerned with ‘power’ in which the best book available for the task was slowly becoming less serviceable. Despite its only providing half the story, Lukes (1974) remained the most appropriate and relevant tool for teaching. The elegance and economy of the book ensured that this was so. However, its use was limited to the extent that subsequent debates were not represented within it. One thinks, for instance, of Foucault's various writings on power. Texts such as Discipline and Punish (1977) require consideration, as Lukes (1986) implicitly recognized. An extract from Foucault's work was subsequently included as a chapter on ‘Disciplinary Power and Subjection’ in a book edited by Lukes (1986) on the topic of Power. In addition, there were major statements by writers including Giddens (1976; 1981), Wrong (1979), Callon et al. (1986) and Mann (1986) to consider. Indeed, some of the subsequent work took the form of a dialogue with Lukes (1974; 1977). A text was necessary which would not only cover the material central to Lukes' concerns but also incorporate more recent work. This book is intended as such a text.
The book is very briefly previewed here. In chapter one the argument is elaborated at greater length. In the first instance, two significant and different foundations developed for the analysis of power at the outset of modernity: those of Hobbes and Machiavelli. For reasons of both the particular time and place at which these ideas were born, it was to be the trajectory from Hobbes which was to chart the contours for the mainstream conception of an agency and episodic notion of power. Machiavelli was not bypassed entirely, particularly not in some recent French sociology. In this book the recovery of the centrality of notions of organization to the ‘fixing’ of the circuits of power (where fixing is used to convey the idea of a representation being developed and realized in a fixed form, as in a photograph) returns Machiavelli's strategic concerns to the analysis of power.
Chapter two contrasts Hobbes and Machiavelli. Chapters three, four, five and six develop the contours of what will be termed an agency and episodic conception of power. In addition, they indicate some lines of development which critics of the episodic and agency conception have opened up via alternative facilitative and dispositional conceptions. [Page xvii]Chapters three and four concern the ‘community power debate’ and its celebrated protagonists, particularly Dahl and Bachrach and Baratz, while chapter five concentrates on Lukes' delineation of a radical view of power. Chapter six extends this to a consideration of the link between agency and structure in the analysis of power made by Giddens' structuration theory. Chapters five and six explore the central issues of the relation of power and interests, power and structure, power capacities and power outcomes, as well as the epistemological underpinnings of alternate empiricist, idealist and realist conceptions of power. Chapter seven introduces the contribution to the analysis of power made by what has come to be called post-structuralism, looking in particular at the work of Foucault. Chapter eight presents a formal model for the analysis of power, constructed in terms of power's circuits, while chapter nine demonstrates how it may be applied to an analysis of the primary power circuit of modernity, the modern, western form of the constitutional state.
The book has been written in a particular way. Chapters one and two function as an overview and foundation for the argument which structures the book as a whole. Each of the subsequent chapters has a primary focus on the contributions of major figures to the sociology of power. Rather than simply use the different positions that each of these has contributed to the literature in order to criticize the others, I have tried to respect the integrity of each set of ideas as I have advanced them. Thus, chapter three focuses on the central contributions of Dahl, chapter four on those of Bachrach and Baratz, chapter five on those of Lukes, chapter six on Giddens, chapter seven on those of Foucault, while chapter eight develops a novel framework for the analysis of ‘circuits of power’, a framework which is used in chapter nine to illuminate some central issues in the sociology of power and the state. There may well be some unintended consequences of having adopted this structure for the book. On occasion it may well appear as if a somewhat uncritical acceptance of particular contributions is being made at certain stages of the argument. For instance, early in chapter three I am concerned to outline the positive contributions that Dahl made to the analysis of power; subsequently some critical reflections on the limits of those contributions are posed. In short, I have tried to take each contribution seriously rather than use it simply as a stalking-horse for attack from an as yet undisclosed position Obviously, I will have my predilections for analysis just as much as the next person, and I am sure that they will show, but at least in this way they may be respectfully displayed.
Another way of thinking about the central substantive chapters is in terms of the temporal nature of the debates reviewed in the book. Each of these positions may be said to have been a dominant contribution at some time or other; that is, they were the normal reference point for debate. In the 1950s the reference points were elitist studies of power by writers like Hunter and Mills, and their critique, most notably by Dahl. In the next decade, the formal model of power developed by Dahl and its empirical [Page xviii]application were at the centre of debate raised by writers such as Bachrach and Baratz, culminating in their empirical application of the critical perspective which they had developed. During the 1970s it was the further radicalization of Bachrach and Baratz's perspective which Lukes achieved that was at the centre of debate. These debates are still very much with us, having stretched well into the 1980s. In the later 1970s the distinctive contributions of Anthony Giddens and Michel Foucault achieved widespread dissemination and discussion throughout the social sciences.
The debates around power have been truly inter-disciplinary. The roots of the concept are in political theory and political philosophy. Subsequently the concept becomes a mainstay of political science in the twentieth century, particularly in the post-war era. From there it is widely dispersed into political sociology. With Lukes' and Giddens' work, in particular, the concept moves out of the arena of political sociology to become perhaps the single most important concept for contemporary sociology. Indeed, the dispersion may be said to be even greater. Power has become one of the central concepts of the social and human sciences per se. As a result of the centrality of the concept to Michel Foucault's later work, it has barely been contained at this level of dispersion but has spun off into areas of literary, film and textual criticism, feminist analysis, social history, organization analysis, penology, sexology, and so on. Regrettably neither the present author nor this book is equipped to trace the dispersion across such a widespread intellectual terrain.
Few books are selfcontained, this one perhaps less than most. For instance, some of the framework of ideas developed here were originally outlined in two earlier books (Clegg 1975; 1979). Certain continuities exist with these earlier works. In particular, readers who are familiar with the formal representation of power which was advanced in the two earlier books may detect a genealogical line in the representation of circuits of power in this text. However, the differences are many and significant, although they are not spelled out at length here. The obvious difference is a retreat from the more ‘radical structuralist’ formulations of the latter and from the more ‘radical humanist’ formulations of the earlier study, to use Burrell and Morgan's (1979) categories. I would hope that the present offering is somewhat more difficult to pigeon-hole than these earlier contributions but I doubt that it is! Many of the questions which the concluding chapter leaves implicit for the modern age have been addressed elsewhere, in terms that are not incompatible with those subsequently developed here, in work that I have done in concert with Paul Boreham and Geoff Dow (1986). On that occasion an analysis was constructed in which present and foreseeable linkages, in what I would now term the circuits of power linking politics and markets, were explored comparatively for the major nations in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Readers who are curious to see how the contemporary circuits of market and state power calibrate in various countries will find our book, Class, Politics and the Economy, of interest. [Page xix]Although the formal model of circuits of power was not developed in that book, with hindsight I think it could usefully have been applied to its analyses.
I have in the past been involved in a number of debates relating to concepts of power and the sociologies of class and organizations. Not surprisingly, some of these concerns recur in this book. In this respect the book is situated midway between a number of distinct substantive topics in sociology and the social sciences more generally. Of necessity, however, some divisions of labour have a greater affinity than others, and so it will not be hard to determine an abiding interest in the sociology of organizations, in Marxist analyses, and in the sociological history of western modernity and certain epistemological questions contingent upon its understanding.
Finally, regarding the audience for this book, I would like to think that people who have in the past found Lukes' book useful for teaching and research may in future find this a modest supplement to that distinguished contribution. Thus, I trust that it will find favour not only with course instructors but also with the undergraduate and postgraduate students who may use Lukes' book. I have tried to write as accessible a text as the material would allow. I hope that I have succeeded in making the ideas that I find fascinating sufficiently clear and as stimulating as they seemed to me when I first met them. The measure of success in this regard would be to encourage others to sample the authors reviewed at first hand. Every one of the major texts which is discussed deserves that attention. Not only are they ail veritable benchmarks of contemporary social science in their understanding of power; they are also major circuits of power in the academic market-place. Indeed, that the two are synonymous is the argument of this book.[Page xx]
Post-Modern Postscript[Page 273]
A final few words are in order in view of the material chosen to make the argument in this book. Strategic reasons were involved. These concerned the past centrality of the theory of the state to the theory of power, as well as the recent centrality of approaches to power which were not closely related to the state at all. Drawing on these may have made the applicability of some newer approaches to some traditionally central questions clearer than they might otherwise have been. In the past, power centred on stabilizing and fixing obligatory passage points for the stable organization of production and state management. In a word it centred on ‘domination’, the fixing of which was ‘legitimation’. One consequence of choosing to concentrate the discussion on the historical case of the modern state is perhaps to make it seem as if power is treated as a massively reified thing, despite the frequent disclaimers and protestations to the contrary. To re-iterate what has been implicit throughout the latter part of the book: this has been posited as a post-modern analysis of the modern condition, post-modern because of its relentless stress on the relational quality of power, the representation of power and the fixing of power as its encompassing frame. However, it has equally been applied to an extremely modernist set of issues: the emergence of those privileged pathways which have become the modern state, organization and market.
Today, for much of the post-modern world, there are indications that of these central institutions it is the market which has emerged the dominant term of the trinity, the architectonic around which both the state and organization have increasingly come to be articulated. That it need not rationally be so to such an extent as has become fashionable is not an issue which we can address here: for one thing, it has been considered at length elsewhere (Clegg et al. 1986); moreover, in much of this world it is no longer clear that rationality, as it might once have been considered, is an appropriate category with which to study political action. If it were, then certain nostrums about the relations of politics and markets, those which stress the rationality and morality of small public sectors as pathways to full [Page 274]employment, low inflation and sustained economic growth, would be far less readily peddled and consumed.
Bauman (1988a: 807) argues very clearly that the shift to post-modern society is premised on the replacement of older modernist and intellectual notions of rationality with the reality of the marketplace as the privileged pathway through which all traffic increasingly must pass. This obligation is such that ‘consumer freedom’, premised on and geared to the market, has become ‘the cognitive and moral focus of life, integrative bond of the society, and the focus of systemic management’. If this was correct as a reading of tendencies present at the time and place that these words were coined (in the United Kingdom during the consumer boom of 1988), then it would have major implications for the project of power. While, in the era of modernist power, the central focus and problems concerned stabilizing the obligatory passage points of state and organization generally on issues of disciplined work, production and surplus, in both the state and economy, in post-modernity the pathways would seemingly have become far more plural and diverse. In part, surely, this is because of the successful reification of power which modernism has accomplished in the state and in organization control. Within this encompassing frame of stable national and organizational entities, new post-modern freedoms from power can seemingly develop.
‘Seemingly’ should be taken advisedly in the previous paragraph. If consumer freedom has taken over ‘the crucial role of the link which fastens together the lifeworlds of the individual agents and purposeful rationality of the system’ (Bauman 1988a: 808) with an attendant shift from production to distribution, from control to consumption, this newly found freedom has been premised, as Bauman (1988a; 1988b) rightly argues, on the power of seduction rather than repression. Where domination no longer requires legitimation, power can shift increasingly out of circuits of repression and prohibition into more productive and positive forms. Consequently, the focus of post-modern power shifts from the episodic agency circuit, the repressive power par excellence, to the dispositional and facilitative circuits. Increasingly, in the post-modern era, power comes to be oriented not to fixing the passage points of a small number of stable and tightly coupled pathways but, on the contrary, to focusing on proliferating and endlessly reproducing privileged pathways, only to devalue them deliberately with the next conceit. ‘Shelf-life’ is remorselessly shortened not by shoddy work but by the pleasures of consumption. In consumer society, far from the consumer being a sovereign subject, subjectivity can never be achieved through the subjection and appropriation of objects because the possibilities of the object world are endlessly proliferating, spinning off, opening new paths to sovereign power on a terrain which unceasingly shifts. In such a world, ‘seduction’ becomes ‘the paramount tool of integration (of the reproduction of domination) in a consumer society’. As Bauman (1988b: 221–2) goes on to say, seduction ‘is made possible once the market succeeds in making the consumers [Page 275]dependent on itself’, a dependency ‘achieved through the destruction of such skills (technical, social, psychological, existential) which do not entail the use of marketable commodities; the more complete the destruction, the more necessary become new skills which point organically to market-supplied implements’. At its most sublime (and surreal), men and women become slaves to the rhythm of the market, held in its bondage.
In the post-modern world, power consists less in the control of the relational field of force in each circuit and more in the way in which the obligatory passage point of the market has become a ‘black hole’, sucking in ever more agency and spewing out an ever more diffuse power as the pursuit of things becomes an all encompassing passion. When things are needed so much for their own sake, for what they can only ever fleetingly signify, power can be relaxed in terms of its repressions, except at the margins of post-modern life, for those for whom membership in the new order has either not been proffered or rejected where it was offered. The disposition to consume and the enjoinment to produce pleasure through the domination and innovation of things are facilitative not of any generalized systemic resistance so much as a satiation which knows only how to feed on itself, which knows only too well, one might say. Such a system is marked by the absence of widespread interventions on behalf of episodic power, other than on the peripheries of civil (i.e. market) society. There it serves to repress ‘the considerable margin of society which cannot be absorbed by market dependency … people whose business of life does not transcend the horizon of survival’ (Bauman 1988b: 222). Consequently, the decline in the exercise of power, in the familiar mode of A getting B to do something that B would not otherwise have done, does not signal the end of power or its consignment merely to a memory chest. On the contrary, it signals a newer and even greater economy of power than its one-dimensional form. In the multi-dimensional pleasure dome of postmodern society, as the traditional spectacle of power retreats to the margins, the centre stage is increasingly occupied by the dispositional and the productive in a plethora of new capacities, empowerments and pathways which are immune to any pretensions to ‘painterly architectonics’ that sovereign power might once have had. The canvas is not fixed; the palette not given; the style not dictated. Representations can be fixed anywhere, anyhow, anyway. This is the post-modern democratic freedom of the market. The conceptual execution of sovereign power heralded only superficially a new realm of freedom; the easing of surveillance seems sure to offer even less freedom if these old concepts are reborn in the unity of the self-regarding and ceaselessly restless consumer sovereign reflexively monitoring the appearance of things through one's self and one's self through things. In such a world, as Bauman (1988b) suggests, legitimations based on the fixity of hegemonic pathways cease to matter. As a corollary, one may note that debates over the concept of power would acquire more of a historical than present-day interest.
Perhaps this ‘forgetting’ of power may yet be the ‘fate of our times’?
References[Page 276][Page 290]1980) The Dominant Ideology Thesis. London: Allen and Unwin. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/589886, and (1981) The Rights of Labour. London: Sage Publications.and (1973) ‘Narrow Class Concerns and Urban Unrest’, American Politics Quarterly, 397–404.(1964) The Rulers and the Ruled: Political Power and Impotence in American Communities. New York: John Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/106591296401700387, and (1979) Organizations and Environments. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.000455(1985) Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511598302and (1971) Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books.(1970) Reading Capital. London: New Left Books.and (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.(1964) ‘Origins of the Present Crisis’, New Left Review, 23: 26–53.(1974) Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism. London, New Left Books.(1977) ‘The Antinomies of Antonio Gramsci’, New Left Review, 100: 5–80.(1983) In the Tracks of Historical Materialism. London: Verso. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25140622(1977) The Ideology of WorkLondon: Tavistock.(1982) ‘Historical Materialism and Social Evolution’, Theory, Culture and Society, 1(2): 89–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327648200100209(1987) ‘On Ritual and Discipline in Medieval Christian Monasteries’, Economy and Society, 16(2): 159–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085148700000002(1985) ‘The Two Ecologies: Population and Community Perspectives on Organization Evolution’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 224–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393106(1962) ‘Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science Review, 56: 947–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1952796and (1963) ‘Decisions and Nondecisions: An Analytical Framework’, American Political Science Review, 57: 641–51.and (1970) Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.and (1975) The Origins of Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell.(1977) Morality and Expediency. Oxford: Blackwell.(1961) Efficiency and Effort. London: Tavistock.(1975) ‘Models of Power: Past and Present’, Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences, July: 211–22.(1976) ‘Power, Causation and Explanation’, Polity, Winter: 189–214.(1978) ‘Two Concepts of Coercion’, Theory and Society, 5(1): 97–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01880862(1988) ‘The Changing Face of Power’, pp. 80–105 in Transforming Political Discourse: Political Theory and Critical Conceptual History. Oxford: Blackwell.([Page 277]1977) ‘Modes of Production in a Materialist Conception of History’, Capital and Class, 3: 1–44.(1966) Political Influence. New York: Free Press.(1977) Review of J.H. Nagel (1976), The Descriptive Analysis of Power and S. Lukes (1974) Power: A Radical View, American Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 1165–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226460(1985) ‘Power and Resistance’, British Journal of Sociology, 36(1): 521–48.(1987) ‘Power, Structural Resources and Agency’, Perspectives in Social Theory, 8: 1–24.(1981a) “On the “Hows” and “Whys” of Cultural Change”, Social Studies of Science, 11: 491–8.(1981b) T.S. Kuhn and Social Science. London: Macmillan.(1986) ‘On Authority and its Relationship to Power’, pp. 180–95 in J.Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?Sociological Review Monograph 32, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1988) The Nature of Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79407-3_3(1976) Towards a Critical Sociology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1978) Hermeneutics and Social Science. London: Hutchinson.(1982) Memories of Class: The Pre-History and After-Life of Class. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. http://dx.doi.org/10.1084/jem.20052495(1983) ‘Industrialism, Consumerism and Power’, Theory, Culture and Society, 1(3): 32–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327648300100304(1987) Legislators and Interpreters. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1988a) “Viewpoint: Sociology and Postmodernity”, Sociological Review, 36(4): 790–813. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1988.tb00708.x(1988b) “Is There a Postmodern Sociology?”, Theory, Culture and Society, 5: 217–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276488005002002(1977) The Philosophical Foundations of the Three Sociologies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1981) ‘“Objective” Interests and the Sociology of Power’, Sociology, 15(2): 161–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003803858101500202(1987) The Capitalist Revolution. London: Wildwood.(1966) The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105649260093005and (1969) Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1971) ‘On the Classification and Framing of Educational Knowledge’, pp. 47–69 in M.F.D.Young (ed.), Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education. London: Collier-Macmillan.(1986) ‘The Conditions of Action, Power and Interests’, Sociological Review, 34(1): 39–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1986.tb02694.x(1975) A Realist Theory of Science. Leeds: Basic Books.(1979a) “On the Possibility of Social Scientific Knowledge and the Limits of Naturalism”, pp. 107–37 in J.Mepham and D.H.Ruben (eds), Issues in Marxist Philosophy. Brighton: Harvester Press.(1979b) The Possibility of Naturalism. Brighton: Harvester Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1978.tb00389.x(1984) ‘The Power of Obedience’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4): 540–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392938and (1987) ‘An Institutional Theory of Leadership’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4): 429–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002188638702300401and (1965) Models and Metaphors. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.(1964) Causal Inferences in Nonexperimental Research. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.. (1982) ‘Historical Materialism Today: An Interview with Anthony Giddens’, Theory, Culture and Society, 1(2): 63–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327648200100206and (1986) Hegemony. London: Tavistock.(1983) ‘Indetermination: Professional Knowledge, Organization and Control’, Sociological Review, 31(4): 693–718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1983.tb00727.x([Page 278]1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1772706(1976) ‘A Critique of Steven Lukes' “Power: A Radical View”’, Sociology, 10: 121–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003803857601000109(1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press.(1982) ‘The Agrarian Roots of European Capitalism’, Past and Present, 97: 16–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/past/97.1.16(1927) The Logic of Modern Physics. London: Macmillan.(1978) ‘Towards a Marxist Theory of the Labour Process: Braverman and Beyond’, Politics and Society, 8: 247–312.(1979) Manufacturing Consent: Changes in the Labor Process under Capitalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1985) The Politics of Production: Factory Regimes under Capitalism and Socialism. London: Verso.(1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann Educational Books.and (1985) ‘Anthony Giddens: A Contemporary Critique’, Theory and Society, 14(2): 133–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00157530(1980) ‘Struggles and Negotiations to Define What is Problematic and What is Not: The Socio-logic of Translation’, pp. 197–219 in K.D.Knorr-Cetina, R.Krohn and R.D.Whitley (eds), The Social Processes of Scientific Investigation. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Vol. 4. Dordrecht: Reidel. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9109-5_8(1986) ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’, in J.Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1981) ‘Unscrewing the Big Leviathan: How Actors Macrostructure Reality and Sociologists Help Them to Do So’, pp. 227–303 in K.D.Knorr-Cetina and A.Cicourel (eds), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Towards an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.and (1982) ‘On Interests and their Transformation’, Social Studies of Science, 1: 615–25.and (1983) ‘From Translations to Problematic Networks: An Introduction to Co-Word Analysis’, Social Science Information, 22: 199–235., , and (Callon, M., J.Law and A.Rip (eds) (1986) Mapping out the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World. London: Macmillan.1977) The 1890s: Stories, Verse, Essays. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.(1987) Class Analysis and Social Research. Oxford: Blackwell.(1982) ‘Organizational Mortality in the Printing Industries of Argentina and Ireland: An Ecological Approach’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 169–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392299and (1976) ‘Politics and Political Science’, Politics, 11(2): 149–55.(1982) Class Consciousness in Australia. Melbourne: Allen and Unwin.(1972) ‘Organization Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice’, Sociology, 6: 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003803857200600101(1985) ‘Managerial Strategies, New Technology, and the Labour Process’, pp. 107–41 in D.Knights, H.Willmott and D.Collinson (eds.), Job Redesign: Critical Perspectives on The Labour Process. Aldershot: Gower.(1972) ‘Community Power and Decision-Making’, Current Sociology, 20(2): 653.(1980) Bureaucrucy and the Labor Process: The Transformation of U.S. Industry 1860–1920. New York: Monthly Review Press.([Page 279]1975) Power, Rule and Domination: A Critical and Empirical Understanding of Power in Sociological Theory and Organizational Life. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1976) ‘Power, Theorizing and Nihilism’, Theory and Society, 3: 65–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00158480(1977) ‘Power, Organization Theory, Marx and Critique’, pp. 21–40 in S.R.Clegg and D.Dunkerley (eds) Critical Issues in Organizations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1979) The Theory of Power and Organization. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1981) ‘Organization and Control’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4): 545–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392339(1983) ‘Organizational Democracy, Power and Participation’, pp. 1–34 in C.Crouch and F.Heller (eds), The International Yearbook of Organizational Democracy. London, John Wiley.(1986) Review of A. Giddens, “The Constitution of Society,”Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 22(1): 167–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/144078338602200128(1987) ‘The Power of Language, the Language of Power’, Organization Studies, 8(1): 60–70.(1989) Organization Theory and Class Analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter.(1980) Organization, Class and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.and (1987) ‘Against the Current: Sociology, Socialism and Organizations’, Organization Studies, 8(3): 201–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068700800301and (1983) ‘Politics and Crisis: The State of the Recession’, pp. 1–50 in S.R.Clegg, G.Dow and P.Boreham (eds), The State, Class and the Recession. London: Croom Helm., and (1986) Class, Politics and the Economy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul., and (1989) ‘Post-Confucianism, Social Democracy and Economic Culture’, forthcoming in S.R.Clegg, S.G.Redding and M.Cartner (eds), Capitalism in Contrasting Cultures. Berlin: De Gruyter., and (1988) Why Americans don't Vote. New York: Pantheon.and (1948) ‘Overcoming Resistance to Change’, Human Relations, 1: 512–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872674800100408and (1972) ‘A Garbage-Can Model of Organizational Choice’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (1): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392088, and (1968) Modern Social Theory. London: Heinemann Educational Books. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/591454(1977) ‘Notes on the Study of Power’, pp. 183–98 in R.J.Liebert and A.W.Imerskein (eds), Power, Paradigms and Community Research. London: Sage Publications.(1976) Ruling Class, Ruling Culture: Studies of Conflict, Power and Hegemony in Australian Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139085076(1983a) “Complexities of Fury Leave … A Critique of the Althusserian Approach to Class”, pp. 98–139 in R.W.Connell (ed.) Which Way is Up?Sydney: Allen and Unwin.(1983b) “The Black Box of Habit on the Wings of History: Reflections on the Theory of Social Reproduction”, pp. 140–61 in R.W.Connell (ed.), Which Way is Up?. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.(1980) Class Structure in Australian History. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27508521and (1972) ‘On “Interests” in Politics’, Politics and Society, 2: 459–77.(1988) Political Theory and Modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.(1984) Michel Foucault. London: Macmillan.and (1985) Power in Capitalist Societies: Theory, Explanations, Cases. Brighton: Wheatsheaf., and ([Page 280]1971) The Un-politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decisionmaking in the Cities. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.(1958) ‘Introduction’. pp. 13–73 in N. Machiavelli. The Prince. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. London: Tavistock.(1979a) Marx's Capital and Capitalism Today. Vol. 1. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul., . and (1979b) Marx's Capital and Capitalism Today. Vol. 2. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul., , . and (1963) A Behavioural Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.and (1957) ‘The Concept of Power’. Behavioural Science. 2: 201–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303(1958) ‘Critique of the Ruling Elite Model’. American Political Science Review. 52: 463–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1952327(1961) Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.(1963) Modern Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.(1966) ‘Further Reflections on “The Elitist Theory of Democracy”’, American Political Science Review. 60(2): 296–303. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1953357(1968) ‘Power’. pp. 405–15 in International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan.(1971) ‘A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model’, pp. 354–63 in F.G.Castles, D.J.Murray and D.C.Potter (eds). Decisions, Organizations and Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1986) ‘Power as the Control of Behaviour’, pp. 37–58 in S.Lukes (ed.), Power. Oxford: Blackwell.(1982) ‘The Theory of Structuration: A Critique’ and ‘Rejoinder to Giddens’. pp. 8–25, 27 in A.Giddens (ed.). Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory. London: Macmillan.(1986) Power in the Organization. Oxford: Blackwell.(1977) Gramsci: Towards an Intellectual Biography. London: Merlin.(1973) ‘The Role of Experience in the Construction of Social Theory: An Essay in Reflexive Sociology’. Sociological Review. 21(1): 25–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1973.tb00478.x(1973) Speech and Phenomenon. Evanston: North Western University Press.(1976) Of Grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3683950(1979) The Nouvelle Philosophie and Foucault. Economy and Society. 8(2): 127–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085147900000005(1984) ‘Power and Subjectivity in Foucault’, New Left Review. 144: 72–95.(1983) ‘The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational fields’. American Sociological Review. 48(2): 147–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095101and (1978) Who Really Rules? New Haven and Community Power Re-examined. Santa Monica: Goodyear.(1985) In Defence of Organization Theory: A Response to the Critics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068800900108(1984) ‘From the Politics of Production to the Production of Politics’. Thesis Eleven. 9: 16–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/072551368400900103, and (1986) Empiricism, Explanation and Rationality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.and (1982) Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. Brighton: Harvester.and (1962) L'Économie Rurale et la Vie des Campagnards dans Occident Medieval. Paris: Presses Universitaires Franaises.(1964) The Division of Labour. New York: Free Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628085.008([Page 281]1980) The State Tradition in Western Europe. Oxford: Martin Robertson.(1983) The Name of the Rose. New York: Martin Secker and Warburg.(1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.(1986) Maktens Hemligheter: En essä om Machiavelli. Stockholm: Norstedts.(1972) Max Weber: The Interpretation of Social Reality. London: Nelson. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003803857400800141(1982) State Formation and Civilization. Oxford: Blackwell.(1983) The Court Society. Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0963926800007781(1988) Althusser: The Detour of Theory. London: Verso. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085148800000020(1953) ‘The Concept of Power’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 54: 1–26.(1988) ‘Against Antinomies: For a Post-Marxist Politics’, Thesis Eleven, 18: 124–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/072551368701800109, and (1975) ‘The Condition of the Working-Class in England’, pp. 295–598 in Karl Marx/Frederick Engels: Collected Works. London: Lawrence and Wishart.(1961) A Comparative Analysis of Organizations. New York: Free Press.(Evans, B.P., D.Rueschemeyer and T.Skocpol (eds) (1986) Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805116282831983) ‘The Institutional Transformations of the Post Laissez-Faire State: Some Reflections on the Italian Case’, pp. 129–51 in S.R.Clegg, G.Dow and P.Boreham (eds), The State, Class and the Recession. Beckenham: Croom Helm.(1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/053901847000900108(1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1979a) “Governmentality”, Ideology and Consciousness, 6: 5–21.(1979b) “What is an Author?”, Screen, 20(1): 13–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/screen/20.1.13(1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, ed. C.Gordon. Brighton: Harvester Press.(1981) ‘Questions of Method: An Interview with Michel Foucault’, Ideology and Consciousnes, 8: 1–14.(1984) The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Harmondsworth: Peregrine. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470755501.ch17(1986) ‘Discipinary Power and Subjection’, pp. 229–41 in S.Lukes (ed.), Power. Oxford: Blackwell.(1974) Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust Relations. London: Faber and Faber.(1983) Beyond the State: Dominant Theories and Socialist Strategies. London: Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgl017(1972) The Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1971) Comment: “‘On Issues and Non-Issues in the Study of Power’,” American Political Science Review, 65: 1081–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1953499(1977) Industry and Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/048661348101300208(1953) Essays on Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1937) Constitutional Government and Democracy. New York: Gipp.(1955) ‘Essentially Contested Concepts’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56: 167–98.(1983) ‘Anthony Giddens and the Crisis of Social Theory’, Economy and Society, 12(3): 368–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085148300000024(1986) ‘Review: The Form of Foucault’, Economy and Society, 15(1): 110–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085148600000018(1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9046-9(1973) ‘Automobile Workers and the American Dream’, Politics and Society, 3: 163–79.(1980) Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.(1983) Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.(1987) ‘Post-Marxism?’, New Left Review, 163: 40–82.([Page 282]1962) Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective and Other Essays. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.(1971) ‘Power’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 101–12.(1968) “‘Power” in the Recent Writings of Talcott Parsons’, Sociology, 2(3): 257–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003803856800200301(1976) New Rules of Sociological Method. London: Hutchinson.(1977) Studies in Social and Political Theory. London: Hutchinson.(1979) Central Problems in Social Theory. London: Macmillan.(1981) A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. London: Macmillan.(1982) ‘A Reply to my Critics’, Theory, Culture and Society, 1(2): 107–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327648200100212(1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1985) The Nation State and Violence. Cambridge: Polity Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030981688602900111(1987) Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226140(1987) ‘On Reading Foucault, Genealogy and Power-Knowledge’. Honours paper, Department of Sociology, Armidale, University of New England.(1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday Anchor.(1961) Asylums. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.(1982) ‘Time-Space Relations in Giddens' Social Theory’, Theory, Culture and Society, 1(2): 83–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327648200100208(1977) Work, Culture and Society in Industrializing America. Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1847655(1970) ‘Toward a Theory of Communicative Competence’, Inquiry, 13: 360–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00201747008601597(1972) Knowledge and Human Interests. London: Heinemann Educational Books. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004839317300300111(1976) Legitimation Crisis. London: Heinemann Educational Books.(1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society. London: Heinemann Educational Books.(1982) Philosophical-Political Profiles, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.(1984) Reason and the Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann Educational Books.(1987) The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.(1986) Power and Liberties: The Causes and Consequences of the Rise of the West. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1983) ‘The Problem of Ideology: Marxism without Guarantees’, pp. 57–86 in B.Matthews (ed.), Marx: A Hundred Years On. London: Lawrence and Wishart.(1986) ‘Patriarchalism in Imperial China and Western Europe: A Revision of Weber's Sociology of Domination’, Theory and Society, 13(3): 393–425.(1984) Governor Reagan, Governor Brown: A Sociology of Executive Power. New York: Columbia University Press.and (1985) ‘Why People Obey: Theoretical Observations on Power and Obedience in Complex Organizations’, Sociological Perspectives, 28(1): 3–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1389072and (1984) ‘Structural Inertia and Organizational Change’, American Sociological Review, 49(2): 149–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2095567and (1977) ‘The Population Ecology of Organizations’, American Journal of Sociology, 82(5): 929–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226424and (1970) ‘Powers’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 21: 81–101.(1985) Varieties of Realism. Oxford: Blackwell.(1975) Causal Powers. Oxford: Blackwell.and (1982) The Limits of Capital. Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2004.00431.x(1944) The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226320533.001.0001(1981) Social Mobility. Glasgow: Fontana. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021932000024986(1960) Models and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame: University of Indiana Press.([Page 283]1971) ‘A Strategic Contingencies Theory of Intra-Organizational Power’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 216–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391831, , , and (1976) Elitism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959636.n181and (1982) ‘Power, Interests and the Outcomes of Struggles’, Sociology, 16(4): 498–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038582016004002(1986) ‘“Interests” in Political Analysis’, pp. 112–31 in J.Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1987) ‘Rationality and the Characterization of Modern Society’, pp. 137–53 in S.Whimster and S.Lash (eds), Max Weber, Rationality and Modernity. London: Allen and Unwin.(1989) ‘Classes, Collectivities and Corporate Actors’, forthcoming in S.R.Clegg (ed.), Organizational Theory and Class Analysis: New Approaches and New Issues, Berlin: De Gruyter.(1974) ‘Structural Conditions of Intra-Organizational Power’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(1): 22–4., , and (1968) ‘The Nature of Feudalism’, pp. 22–31 in F.L.Cheyette (ed.), Lordship and Community in Medieaval Europe. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.(1978) The Social Limits to Growth. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1977) The Passions and the Interests. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/053901847601500605(1982) ‘The Social Theory of Anthony Giddens: A New Syncretism’, Theory, Culture and Society, 1(2): 72–82.(1839) The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, Vols 1 and 2, ed. . London: J. Bohn.(1962) Leviathan, ed. M.Oakeshott, with an introduction by R.S. Peters. London: Collier-Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840890.026(1969) Industry and Empire. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1985) The Transition from Feudalism to Capitalism. London: Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00208270(1986) Cities, Capitalism and Civilization. London: Allen and Unwin.(1986) ‘Against Nostalgia: Talcott Parsons and a Sociology for the Modern World’, pp. 207–34 in R.J.Holton and B.S.Turner (eds), Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.and (1986) ‘Power, Repression, Progress: Foucault, Lukes and the Frankfurt School’, pp. 123–48 in D.C.Hoy (ed.), Foucault: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.(1902) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Clarendon Press.(1953) Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.(1987) Power and Marxist Theory. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.(1987) ‘Review of “New Technology as Organizational Innovation”, edited by J.M.Pennings and A.Buitendam’, Academy of Management Executive, August: 259–61.(1982) The Capitalist State: Marxist Theories and Methods. Oxford: Martin Robertson. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085148008538586(1985) Nicos Poulantzas: Marxist Theory and Political Struggle. London: Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412994088.n276(1987) ‘Capitalism, Nation States and Surveillance’, mimeo, University of Essex.(1972) The Professions and Power. London: Macmillan.(1966) The Critique of Pure Reason. New York: Doubleday Anchor.(1973) Black Men. White Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1987) Individualism and Public Life: A Modern Dilemma. Oxford: Blackwell.(1987) ‘From Asceticism to Administration of Wealth: Medieval Monasteries and the Pitfalls of Rationalization’, Organization Studies, 8(2): 103–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068700800201([Page 284]1986) The State in Modern Society: New Directions in Political Sociology. London: Macmillan.(1985) ‘Redesigning Work on the Shopfloor: A Question of Control or Consent?’, pp. 197–226 in D.Knights, H.Willmott and D.Collinson (eds), Job Redesign: Critical Perspectives on the Labour Process. Aldershot: Gower.and (1982) ‘Power, Values and Relations: Comment on Benton’, Sociology, 16(4): 578–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038582016004007and (1979) ‘Power, Exchange and Inequality’, paper presented to the Xith World Congress of the International Political Science Association in Moscow, August.(1983) The Democratic Class Struggle. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1980) ‘Unequal Opportunity Structure and Labour Market Segmentation’, Sociology, 14(4): 525–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003803858001400402(1984) Revolution in Poetic Language. New York: Columbia University Press.(1986) The Kristeva Reader. Oxford: Blackwell.(1984) ‘Modern Power in Reverse Image: The Paradigm Shift of Michel Foucault and Talcott Parsons’, pp. 74–103 in 1.Fekete (ed.), The Structural Allegory. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.(1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226458144.001.0001(1977) An Economic Theory of the Feudal System. London: New Left Books. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110880892(1977) ‘Michel Foucault: Ending the Era of Man’, Theory and Society, 4: 395–420.(1977) tcrits. London: Tavistock.(1975) ‘The Specificity of the Political: The Poulantzas-Miliband Debate’, Economy and Society, 4: 87–110.(1980) ‘Nonpopulist Rupture and Discourse’, Screen Education, 34: 87–93.(1983a) “The Impossibility of Society”, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 7: 21–4.(1983b) ““Socialism,” the “People,” “Democracy”: The Transformation of Hegemonic Logic”, Social Text, 7: 115–19.(1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso.and (1987) ‘Post-Marxism without Apologies’, New Left Review, 166: 77–106.and (1969) The Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1965) The World We Have Lost Further Explored. London: Methuen.(1988) ‘The European Family and Early Industrialization’, pp 234–42 in J.Baechler, J.A.Hall and M.Mann (eds), Europe and the Rise of Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell.(1950) Power and Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.and (1986a) “Editor's Introduction: Power/Knowledge and the Dissolution of the Sociology of Knowledge”, pp. 1–19 in J.Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1986b) “On the Methods of Long-distance Control: Vessels, Navigation and the Portuguese Route to India”, pp. 234–83 in J.Law (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1984) Science for Social Scientists. London: Macmillan.and (1983) The Archibald Paradox. Melbourne: Allen Lane.(1985) ‘Power, Structure and Agency’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 15(2): 131–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1985.tb00048.x(1987) ‘Key Issues in Structuration Theory: Some Critical Remarks’, Current Perspectives in Social Theory, 8: 25–46.([Page 285]1972) ‘Bibliography’, Current Sociology, 20(2): 57–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001139217202000204(1982) The Development of the Labour Process in Capitalist Societies. London: Heinemann Educational Books.(1982) ‘Bravermania and Beyond: Recent Theories of the Labour Process’, Sociology, 16: 251–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038582016002006and (1959) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. New York: Dover Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11304-008(1964) ‘Social Integration and System Integration’, pp. 244–57 in G.K.Zollschan and W.Hirsch (eds) Explorations in Social Change. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1974) Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2007.6.3.59(1976) ‘Reply to Bradshaw’, Sociology, 10: 129–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003803857601000110(1977) Essays in Social Theory. London: Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1960874(1982) ‘Of Gods and Demons: Habermas and Practical Reason’, pp. 134–48 in J.B.Thompson and D.Held (eds), Habermas: Critical Debates. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.(Lukes, S. (ed.) (1986) Power. Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ctx.2007.6.3.591988) ‘The Cradle of Capitalism: The Case of England’, pp. 185–203 in J.Baechler, J.A.Hall and M.Mann (eds), Europe and the Rise of Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell.(1958) The Prince. London: Everyman. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226500508.001.0001(1970) The Discourses. Harmondsworth: Penguin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1522/cla.man.dis(1962) ‘A Mistake about Causality in Social Science’, pp. 48–70 in P.Laslett and W.G.Runciman (eds), Philosophy, Politics and Society (2nd series). Oxford: Blackwell.(1978) ‘Statistical Theory and Social Interests: A Case Study’, Social Studies of Science, 8: 35–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631277800800102(1962) The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: From Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Clarendon Press.(1980) ‘State and Society, 1130–1815: An Analysis of English State Finances’, in Political Power and Social Theory, 1: 165–208.(1986) The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to A. D. 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1976) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.and (1964) One-Dimensional Man. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1974) ‘What Do Bosses Do? - the Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 6: 60–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/048661347400600206(1982) In Search of the Spirit of Capitalism: An Essay on Max Weber's Protestant Ethic Thesis. London: Hutchinson.(1980) ‘Women, Labour Markets and Employing Organizations: A Critical Perspective’, pp. 128–50 in D.Dunkerley and G.Salam (eds), The International Yearbook of Organization Studies. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1960) The Nature and Types of Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1976) Capital Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1970) The German Ideology. Moscow: International Publishing Company. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139168007.012and (1987) ‘Weber and the Classification of Forms of Legitimacy’, British Journal of Sociology, 38(2): 199–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/590532(1975) The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1335838(1986) Wittgenstein on Certainty and the Problem of Rule in Social Science. Toronto: Toronto Semiotic Circle.(1984) ‘Critical or Positive Theory? A Comment on the Status of Anthony Giddens' Social Theory’, Theory, Culture and Society, 2(2): 123–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263276484002002010([Page 286]1962) The Myth of the Ruling Class. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.(1977) ‘Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony’, American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/226550and (1987) ‘The Growth of Public and Private Bureaucracies’, paper presented to Critical Perspectives on Organizational Theories, ISA-RC 17 Conference, 18–22 July, Wassenaar, the Netherlands.(1949) Political Parties. New York: Free Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1947592(1969) The State in Capitalist Society. London: Quartet.(1970) ‘The Capitalist State - Reply to Nicos Poulantzas’, New Left Review, 59: 53–61.(1940) ‘Situated Actions and Vocabularies of Motive’, American Sociological Review, 5: 904–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2084524(1956) The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1986) ‘Strategies for Socialists? Foucault's Conception of Power’, pp. 106–48 in M.Gane (ed.), Towards a Critique of Foucault. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1983) Power in and around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.(1986) ‘Talking Social Structure: Discourse Domination and the Watergate Hearings’, American Sociological Review, 50: 237–86.and (1968) The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1939) The Ruling Class. New York: McGraw Hill.(1988) ‘Marxism or Post-Marxism?’, New Left Review, 167: 107–23.(1965) The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.(1984) ‘Public Bureau Budgets and Jurisdictional Size’, Public Choice, 44: 175–83.(1969) ‘A Critique of the Pluralist Model’, Acta Sociologica, 12: 209–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000169936901200405(1975) ‘Community Politics and Decision Making: the American Experience and its Lessons’, pp. 1–24 in K.Newton (ed.), Essays on the Study of Urban Politics. London: Croom Helm.(1981) Structure and Change in Economic History. New York: Norton.(1973) The Rise of the Western World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511819438and (1983) ‘European Economic Development: The Contribution of the Periphery’, Economic History Review, 35(1): 1–18.(1982) Neostoicism and the Early Modern State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511562716(1982) ‘Foucault and the Foucauldians’, Economy and Society, 11(4): 449–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085148200000017(1987) ‘The Disciplinary Society: From Weber to Foucault’, British Journal of Sociology, 37(1): 42–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/591050(1981) ‘Two Logics of Collective Action: Theoretical Notes on Social Class and Organizational Form’, Political Power and Social Theory: A Research Annual, 1: 67–116.and (1961) Dimensions of Freedom: An Analysis. London: Macmillan.(1948) Animal Farm. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1935) The Mind and Society. New York: Dover.(1972a) Class Inequality and Political Order: Social Stratification in Capitalist and Communist Societies. London: McGibbon and Kee.(1972b) “System Contradiction and Political Transformation: The Comparative Study of Industrial Societies”, European Journal of Sociology, 13: 45–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600002411(1976) ‘System Contradiction and Political Transformation: The Comparative Study of Industrial Societies’, pp. 127–46 in T.R.Burns and W.Buckley (eds), Power and Control: Social Structures and their Transformation. London: Sage Publications.(1974) ‘When is a Decision not a Decision?’, pp. 317–37 in I.Crewe (ed.), British Political Sociology Yearbook, Vol. 1: Elites in Western Democracy. London: Croom Helm.and ([Page 287]1937) The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw Hill. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2107414(1951) The Social System. New York: Free Press.(1963) ‘On the Concept of Political Power’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 107: 232–62.(1967) Sociological Theory and Modern Society. New York: Free Press.(1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: University; Cambridge Press.(1981) Power in Organizations. Boston, MA: Pitman.(1978) The Development of the Modern State. London: Hutchinson.(1983) Calvinism and the Capitalist Spirit. London: Macmillan.(1963) Community Power and Political Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.(1962) The Open Society and its Enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1965) Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Harper Torchbooks. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3050617(1969) ‘The Problem of the Capitalist State’, New Left Review, 58: 67–78.(1973) Political Power and Social Classes. London: New Left Books.(1976) State, Power, Socialism. London: New Left Books.(1964) Men at the Top. Oxford: Oxford University Press.(1980) ‘Material Bases of Consent: Economics and Politics in a Hegemonic System’, Political Power and Social Theory, I: 21–66.(1987) Jurgen Habermas. London: Tavistock. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203425817(1978) A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2025372(1986) ‘Social Innovation at Work: the Humanization of Workers in Twentieth Century America’, PhD dissertation, Santa Cruz, University of California.(1964) Key Problems of Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203002100(1972) The Dice Man. Frogmore: Panther.(1977) ‘Goffman on Power’, American Sociologist, 12: 88–95.(1986) Power and the Division of Labour. Cambridge: Polity Press.(1938) Power: A New Social Analysis. London: Allen and Unwin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00988.x(1986) ‘The Forms of Power’, pp. 19–21 in S.Lukes (ed.), Power. Oxford: Blackwell.(1949) The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226922652.001.0001(1972) ‘An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology’, pp. 31–74 in D.Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social lnteraction. New York: Free Press.(1987) ‘High Tech as Villain: On Wall Street, Computer Programs came to Replace Individual Judgement’, International Herald Tribune, Singapore, 16 December: 1, 6.(1959) L'Existentialisme et les Humanismes. Paris: Nagel.(1979) Urban Politics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.1992.tb00282.x(1974) Course in General Linguistics. London: Fontana.(1982) The Social Theory of Talcott Parsons. London: Macmillan.(1979) Marx's Method: Ideology, Science and Critique in ‘Capital’. Brighton: Harvester.(1987) ‘In the US, Privacy has become a Public Affair’, Sydney Morning Herald, 29 December: 11.(1960) The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.(1962) Collected Papers, Vol. I. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1077-0(1964) Collected Papers, Vol. 2. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.(1967) The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.(1970) ‘Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences’, pp 1–19 in D.Emmet and A.MacIntyre (eds), Sociological Theory and Philosophical Analysis. London: Macmillan.([Page 288]1987) ‘Political Power in Social Theory: Reconsidering Anthony Giddens Most Systematic Critique of Talcott Parsons’, mimeo, Department of Sociology, University of Delaware.(1987) ‘The Adolescence of Institutional Theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4): 493–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392880(1965) The Stratification of Behaviour: A System of Definitions Propounded and Defended. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1970) The Theory of Organizations. London: Heinemann Educational Books.(1952) ‘Decision Making and Administrative Organization’, pp. 185–94 in R.K.Merton, A.N.Gray, B.Hockey and H.C.Selvin (eds), Reader in Bureaucracy. New York: Free Press.(1986) ‘Organizational Change and Organizational Mortality’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 (4): 587–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392965, and (1979) States and Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00158678(1985) Michel Foucault. London: Tavistock.(1959) Social Change in the Industrial Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1982) ‘“Put Not Your Trust in Princes” - A Commentary upon Anthony Giddens and the Absolutist State’, Theory, Culture and Society, 1(2): 93–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327648200100210(1987) ‘Elite Cohesion in Dahl's New Haven: Three Centuries of the Private School’, pp. 96–115 in G.W.Domhoff and T.R.Rye (eds), Power Elites and Organizations. London: Sage Publications.(1893) Principles of Sociology. London: Williams and Norgate. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14123-000(1988) The Best Congress Money Can Buy. New York: Pantheon.(1965) ‘Social Structure and Organizations’, pp. 142–93 in J.G.March (ed.), Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.(1974) ‘The Origins of Job Structures in the Steel Industry’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 6: 113–74.(1983) Managerial Prerogative and the Question of Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1985) ‘The Means of Management Control’, Sociology, 19(2): 193–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038585019002004(1978) Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes and Social Order. London: Jossey-Bass. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb16523.x(1972) ‘The Significance and Interpretation of Replies to Motivational Questions: The Case of Sex Offenders’, Sociology, 6(1): 23–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003803857200600102(1976) Science, Class and Society. London: New Left Books.(1977) ‘The Rule of Capital and the Rise of Bourgeois Democracy’, New Left Review, 103(3): 41.(1978) What does the Ruling Class do When it Rules? State Apparatuses and State Powers under Feudalism, Capitalism and Socialism. London: New Left Books.(1980) The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology. London: Verso.(1985) ‘Rationalization and the Status of Gender Divisions’, Sociology, 19(3): 409–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038038585019003005(1967) ‘Time, Work, Discipline and Industrial Capitalism’, Past and Present, 38: 56–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/past/38.1.56(1968) The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth: Penguin.(1956) ‘Authority and Power in Identical Organizations’, American Journal of Sociology, 62: 290–301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/222006(1986a) “Parsons and his Critics: On the Ubiquity of Functionalism”, pp. 179–206 in R.J.Holton and B.S.Turner (eds), Talcott Parsons on Economy and Society. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1986b) Citizenship and Capitalism: The Debate over Reformism. London: Allen and Unwin.(1835) The Philosophy of Manufactures. London: Charles Knight. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/9789812701275_0016([Page 289]1981) The Anatomy of Capitalist Society. London: Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000169938202500406(1982) ‘Duality of Structure: Some Critical Issues’, Theory, Culture and Society, 1(2): 100–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026327648200100211(1975) ‘The Concept of Interest in Politics’, Politics and Society, 5: 487–510.(Wall, R., J.Robin and P.Laslett (eds) (1983) Family Forms in Historic Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO97805118975351974) The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. London: Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/072551368802000105(1965) Hobbes' System of Ideas. London: Hutchinson.(1939) Methodism and the Working Class Movements of England 18001950. London: Epworth.(1947) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.(1948) From Max Weber: Essays in Social Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810831(1976) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen and Unwin.(1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology (2 Vols), ed. and . Berkeley: University of California Press.(1986) ‘Domination by Economic Power and Authority’, pp. 28–36 in S.Lukes (ed.), Power. Oxford: Blackwell.(1987) Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.(1988) ‘Political and Social Structures of the West’, pp. 169–84 in J.Baechler, J.A.Hall and M.Mann (eds), Europe and the Rise of Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell.(1987) Initiation and Innovation: The Transfer of Western Organizational Patterns to Meiji Japan. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamda.2004.12.004(1979) ‘Towards a Class Dialectical Model of Power: An Empirical Assessment of Three Competing Models of Political Power’, American Sociological Review, 44: 81–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094819(1982) Urban Elites and Mass Transportation. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.(1983) ‘Power and Power Analysis’, Economy and Society, 12(4): 468–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03085148300000003(1981) English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit 18501980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.(1988) Industrial Relations Journal, 19(1).and (1981) ‘Transaction Cost Economies: The Governance of Contractual Relations’, Journal of Law and Economics:233–61.(1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9320-5_6(1968) Philosophical Investigations, tr. G.E.M.Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.(1971a) “Non decisions and the Study of Local Politics”, American Political Science Review, 65: 1063–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1953498(1971b) “Rejoinder to Frey's “Comment””, American Political Science Review, 65: 1102–04. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1953500(1960) Politics and Vision. Boston: Little, Brown.(Wood, S. (ed.) (1982) The Degradation of Work?London: Hutchinson. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/251404691981) ‘Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science’, Social Studies of Science, 11: 365–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631278101100304(1978) Class, Crisisand the State. London: New Left Books. http://dx.doi.org/10.2746/042516409X479595(1985) Classes. London: New Left Books. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511488917(1979) Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses. Oxford: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952552.n225(1988) ‘Is Population Ecology a Useful Paradigm for the Study of Organizations?’, American Journal of Sociology, 94(1): 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228949(1976) Fictions: The Novel and Social Reality. Harmondsworth: Peregrine.(