Three Faces of Power

Steven Lukes introduced the idea of the three faces or dimensions of power in a famous short book, Power: A Radical View.

The first dimension of power, basic decision-making power, is the most straightforward and also the most visible and observable of the three faces of power. It focuses on actual behavior and specific outcomes of decision-making processes. In this view, power is in the hands of those who prevail in decision making. The first dimension of power takes into account only observable conflicts between interests. These interests are observed by the expression of policy preferences, which is revealed by political participation. Proponents of this one-dimensional view of power include Robert A. Dahl, Nelson Polsby, and Raymond E. Wolfinger.

The second face of power is in essence the power to influence, or the power of non decision making. Non decision making power is the power that groups and individuals have to control the agenda in debates and make certain issues unacceptable for discussion in moderate public forums. Proponents of the second dimension of power took exception to the one-dimensional view of power, claiming that it reflected a far too narrow understanding of power. Because of this, Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz argue that the one-dimensional view gave a misleadingly sanguine pluralistic picture of U.S. politics. Not only can power be enforced by exerting decision-making power, it can also be enforced by controlling and setting the norms, values, and the design of the decision-making procedures that consistently benefit certain groups at the expense of others. In contrast with the one-dimensional view, proponents of the two-dimensional view hold that potential issues should also come under scrutiny when studying power. However, like the one-dimensional view, the two-dimensional view looks only at observable conflict of interests and conflicts, which are embodied in express policy preferences and subpolitical preferences. Also, the two-dimensional view assumes that non decision making is in itself a form of decision making. Because of this, Lukes says that the two-dimensional view is only a qualified critique of the one-dimensional view.

Finally, the three-dimensional view holds that along with the two faces of power described above, there is a third face: power as domination. This form of power is the most important and the most insidious, according to Lukes. The third face of power works to influence the thoughts and desires of individuals so that they will want things that they would otherwise oppose. The problem of both the one-dimensional and the two-dimensional views of power is their focus on actual behavior, decision making, and conflict. According to Lukes, “the bias of the system is not simply sustained by a series of individually chosen acts” (2005, p. 26) but also by the patterned behavior that develops over time through action and failure to act. Lukes submits that the third face of power can also manifest itself in latent conflict as well as actual conflict. According to Lukes, the ways in which issues are left out of public discussion is a manifestation of the third face of power. Looking at the third face of power allows one to consider whether consensus in society is real or manipulated and to examine uses and abuses of power beyond the realm of conflict.

...