Missing in action: Dee, Brandyn, Kyle, Hyatt
Foucault argues that modernity coincides with a shift from sovereign power (essentially the power of negation, of ending life, an all-or- Keri Hartman
nothing measure) to disciplinary power, which shapes individuals' lives through the production of norms and the classification of
individuals around those norms.
1. The main difference between the third view of power (the view that power consists of the ability to shape another's desire) and the Martin Kessler
first two views is that the third does not stress conflict while the first two do. In the first two views, power is determined by examining
decision-making and nondecision making. The first view focuses more on coercion while the second focuses more on influence.
Q#1: Lukes proposes three separate views of power: a pluralist/one-dimensional account that attributes power as something Mariel Sena
intentional and active, pluralist critic/two-dimensional account that finds power to be both in concrete matters and those that are less
controversial, and a three-dimensional view that he finds most comprehensive that exposes power as the ability to shape perception
and preferences towards accepting assigned roles.
One-dimensional describes a very conscious, behavior oriented, and active form of power, two-dimensional mostly retains the first but Véronique Irwin
also suggests that the complements of the significant events for 1-D power are also important (i.e. overt/covert,
preferences/grievances, rather than just the former), and 3-D introduces a behavioral critique and that the interests and conflicts
associated with power in the first two dimensions may exist with out actually being expressed.
1. The main differences between the three theories of power, according to Lukes, is that the first type of power- first dimensional, Khadijah
focuses on explicit exercises of power, in which the person(s) in power explicitly decide to choose their own interests over others; the
second dimension is more subtle in that those in power get to shape what is even discussed and broached, allowing the in-power to
shut out dissent w/o hearing the other preferences; Luke's third dimension, the most subtle and invisible, is one in which not only do
the power-holders explicitly shape and decide the interests areas of focus, their power is such that they have vast influence on what
the lesser-powered person(s) believe(s) should be of interest. Thus, according to Lukes, while the first and second dimensions revolve
around explicit conflict, the third transcends this by describing power as something not explicitly known or seen, but working
inconspicuously, unchallenged, unknown, almost magically, not quite unlike the way in which the invisible hand works.
How has power changed over time? For a long time, power was sought as being the right to decide life and death. Starting in the Mitch Ross
17th century it moved into two basic forms. One of these being anatomo-political and the other being a biological process. For the
first time in history biological existence was reflected in political existence, which helped in developing sex as a political issue. This then
transitions into power through social production and social service in the 18th century. This seemed to focus on the power of truth,
which would detach from the forms of hegemony, social, economic and cultural. It then seemed to end with discipline and how the
Panopticon disindividualizes power.
2. According to Focault, power for a long time was based on a monarch's control over life and death, meaning that power manifested Chason Sippel
in a sovereign leader who held discretion over which individual lived or died, having total domain over life. However, as individuals
began to viewed as social creatures with links to each other, power became about society, or rather allowing it to proper and flourish.
Focault then sees social structure as developing over blood (status groups [races, social networks--royal blood, etc], classes, and so on)
and sex (the world becomes divided by gender lines, population control becomes a concern)
In "Power: A Radical View," Lukes gives a framework for understanding how power is legitimately monopolized by the powerful and Ekene Agu
how they secure the compliance of the powerless. He outlines three dimensions of power- 1D, 2D, and 3D. The first is a naive
conception of power that judges it through the overt exercise of it. The second is slightly more comprehensive in that it accounts for
covert exercise of power to suppress dissent. Lukes presents his radical view in his 3D conception of power which accounts for the
ability of the powerful to shape values in such a way as to completely stifle dissent and foster complacency with the status quo among
the citizenry- people don't even think to dissent. They just accept the state of things as an immutable given.
#1: The three types of power Lukes proposes differ in their range of subtlety and acceptance of actors' limited knowledge. The one- Jamie Song
dimensional view of power is behavioral and focuses on conflict and subjective interests; the two-dimensional view of power is a
stepping stone to the three-dimensional view of power, which critiques behavioral methodologies and addresses covert and latent
conflict in addition to real interests, which the actor may be unaware of.
1) The views of power seem to evolve as the dimensions grow. The first focuses primarily on observable conflicts with decision- Jordan Nuckolls
making, while the second focuses on many the same issues, but expands to look at nondecision-making and both overt and covert
conflict. The third dimension is different because it includes latent conflicts and includes both subjective and real interests.
Yaa
repress.
History and time have very little agency in the growing transformations of society and how it reacts with the resources that govern Kevin Kong
their growth. Power was once the ability to "refuse to be hospitable and accommodating" and enforce its own laws against others
successfully. Over time, power has come to assume the form of knowledge: states use the collection of citizen data to complement
their penal policies and disciplinary capacities.
In Power by Steven Lukes he focuses on the 3 dimensions of power within the government. The first (19) is the 1 dimensional view of Addy
power which involves the focus of behavior in making decisions on issues when there is an observable conflict of subjective issues. The
second dimension of power recognizes the policy part but also controls decision making by limiting the scope of the issues that can
even be brought to the forefront. (20) they establish this by creating biases or a set of norms/ barriers that people feel compelled to
stay within the limits of. The third is a thoroughgoing critique of the first two dimensions as too methodologically individualist in its
approach. The third dimension highlights that there are social forces and institutional practices that are much greater than just one
person having control over the other (28).
The big picture of this week's reading centered around influence. It specifically centered around what behaviors lend themselves to Wesley Gordon
allowing a person exert influence. Once that influence is obtained, then it is pertinent to observe how that power works in different
arenas.