Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:41:52.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Problem of Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

D. M. White
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Power has been so extensively analysed and so variously defined that a raw student (or even a seasoned practitioner) who looks at a dozen or so definitions of power might well wonder about the nature of the enterprise. The situation seems to be that there is some agreement on what power is — the word might otherwise be expected to have fallen into disuse — and some very sharp disagreement. But one is at something of a loss to know, firstly where the agreement is, secondly what is at issue between rival definitions, and thirdly which disagreements are basic and which mere refinements. A new analyst might well be puzzled about where to begin; and I rather think that all those who analyse power must be quite uncertain about what it would be to succeed in their task.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , October 1972 , pp. 479 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The meaning of ‘affecting’ is considered below; it is enough to say here that it is being used in the widest possible sense.

2 ‘If we wish to say that knowledge is to be defined, somehow, in terms of correct belief, we shall certainly have to add something about the grounds of the belief.’ Price, H. H., Belief (London: Allen & Unwin, 1969), p. 84Google Scholar; cf. Plato, , Meno, 97–8Google Scholar; Theaetetus, 200 ff.

3 The meaning of ‘affecting’ and the relevance of ‘significance’ are considered below.

4 Russell, Bertrand, Power: A New Social Analysis (London: Unwin Books, 1960), p. 25.Google Scholar

5 It is argued below that there cannot be a simple complete definition of an exercise of power.

6 There is a bibliography and a general discussion of the issue under the heading ‘Reasons and Causes’ in Edwards, Paul, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (New York: The Macmillan Company and The Free Press, 1967).Google Scholar

7 Cf. Russell, , Power, p. 25;Google ScholarWarrender, Howard, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 312;Google ScholarWeber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, ed. , trans. Henderson, A. M. and Parsons, Talcott (New York: The Free Press, 1964), p. 152;Google ScholarMills, C. Wright, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 9;Google ScholarFriedrich, C. J., An Introduction to Political Theory (New York: Harper and Row, 1967), p. 123;Google ScholarTawney, R. H., Equality (London: Unwin Books, 1964), p. 159;Google Scholar Dorwin Cartwright, ‘Influence, Leadership, Control’, reprinted in Roderick Bell, David V. Edwards, and R. Harrison Wagner, eds., Political Power: A Reader in Theory and Research (New York: The Free Press, 1969), p. 154; John C. Harsanyi, ‘Measurement of Social Power, Opportunity Costs, and the Theory of Two-person Bargaining Games’, reprinted in Bell et al., Political Power, p. 227; Lasswell, H. D. and Kaplan, A., Power and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), pp. 74–5;Google ScholarBachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton S., Power and Poverty (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 24;Google ScholarBanfield, E. C., Political Influence (New York: The Free Press, 1961), p. 348;Google ScholarEaston, D., The Political System (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953), pp. 143–4.Google Scholar

8 Cf. H. A. Simon, ‘Notes on the Observation and Measurement of Power’, reprinted in Bell et al., Political Power, p. 69; Robert A. Dahl, ‘The Concept of Power’, reprinted in Bell et al, Political Power, p. 79; Oppenheim, Felix E., Dimensions of Freedom (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1961), p. 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 It hardly makes sense to ask whether doodling could significantly affect a piece of paper – although it might if the piece of paper was a will.