Reading and Notetaking

hello

i want some to read and take note, then i want him to answer the question

PIAEXERCISE SHEET 5

Due before 12 noon on Monday, 19 October (Week 5) and for use in your seminar that day.

As your CW2 (worth 20% of your final module mark) is due on Wednesday 21st October, there is only a

Reading Task on this sheet and no Skills Task. This means that this Exercise Sheet is worth only 5 points

toward your Learning Portfolio. The Reading task is also relatively short, so you should be able to complete

it in less time than usual.

If you are not up to date with your work and you cannot do everything, then remember to prioritise your

work on CW2. Even if you do not complete the Exercise Sheet this week, you can still attend the seminar

and do your best to participate and learn from it. If you do not complete an Exercise Sheet, you will only be

losing 5-10 points off the Learning Portfolio. With a possible 100 points for the Learning Portfolio, this is

really not the end of the world! (In other words, try to see this work in perspective if you are feeling extra

stressed, and focus of the work that is more heavily weighted first).

In general, be aware that you can always submit any Exercise Sheet late on the grounds that it may get

counted later on if you have (at any point in the term):

a) a disability and a reasonable adjustments form (which you get from Disability Services)

b) official mitigating circumstances (through a mitigating circumstances application)

c) not used all three of your free chances to submit work late without mitigating circumstances

(which all students on the module have).

Finally, as is stated in the Module Handbook, there are no classes and no exercise sheet in Week 6. This

means that between completing your CW2 and the end of Week 6, you will have time to catch up with

anything you may have missed.

Reading and Notetaking Task (4)

Important: If any of the links here don’t work for you, please look the titles up in a Library search. (For

example, the first source here will be found if you do a simple search, using the terms: Swartz, Recasting

Power). Links to the sources are also on the PIA Reading list and you should be able to gain access there.

Sometimes you might have to choose “Institutional Login” or “Shibboleth” and look up the “UK

Federation” group and then find University of Westminster. This takes you to our login page. However, if

you sign into the University library page and search from there, you are less likely to have to take extra

steps to get through the additional gateways. If you have trouble finding resources you can try Ask a

Librarian.

1. Find the following sources:

David Swartz, 2007, “Recasting Power in its Third Dimension. Review of Lukes, Power: A Radical View,

Second Edition”, Theory and Society, 36(1): 103-109. You will only need to read pages 103-106 to answer

the questions below.

https://westminster-uk.libanswers.com/

https://westminster-uk.libanswers.com/

https://link-springer-com.uow.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007/s11186-006-9018-5

https://link-springer-com.uow.idm.oclc.org/content/pdf/10.1007/s11186-006-9018-5

Note that the above is a book review of the second edition of Steven Lukes’s famous and highly influential

1974 book, Power: A Radical View. In 2005, Lukes expanded and updated his definition of power. The link

here is to the second edition of the book. Find the 2005 edition of this book, too. Read the section entitled

“The Concept of Power”, on pages 69-74.

When interpreting the review, it might be helpful to use Keith Dowding, 2011, Encyclopedia of Power,

Sage, but this is optional. You may also use other parts of Lukes’s book which elaborate on his

explanations. Specific pages and entries are listed below where relevant. These pages are optional reading.

2. Based on your readings, answer the following questions

Make sure to write in your own words. Try you’re best to put your answers in words that make sense to

you.

1. What, according to Swartz’s review (and according to Lukes himself), are the three

dimensions of power? To help you answer this, you can also consult these parts of Lukes’s

own book: the first paragraph of the Introduction (on p.1), the last paragraph on p.15, and

the last paragraph on p.28. You might also find the tables on p.29 useful. But reading these

passages of Lukes is optional.

2. Try to come up with at least one example for each of the three types of power. These can be

historical or contemporary, but they should be examples from real life political events.

3. The reviewer (Swartz) describes how Lukes addresses the hazards of seeing power in too

limited a way. Explain the five ways Lukes’s tells us to broaden earlier definitions of power.

(Hint: you can look up “exercise fallacy” in the Encyclopedia of Power to help with the first

one).

4. On page 105 of the Review, the reviewer (Swartz) points out that a relationship of power in

which one person or group has power over another, is a relationship in which the “interests

of subordinates are distorted”. What do you think is meant by this statement? (Hint: Start

by figuring out what is meant by “interests” and “distorted”). In what ways might the

interests of of subordinates be distorted by a power relationship?

5. From where do people’s “interests” arise, according to the Review?

6. Thinking of power defined as domination (whether obvious or hidden)… Can you spot any

particular instances of how power is exercised over you in YOUR life? Give three examples

of power structures that are part of your everyday life. Below are some possible examples.

Elaborate on your own examples, and explain how power is exercised over you and anyone

else around you. Explain how you know these forms of power exist. Reflect on whether they

are visible or more hidden.

i. Power relations within a group of people that you are part of (e.g. family, society,

circle of friends, student cohort, resident of your house or street, a religious

congregation, etc.) How is power evident?

ii. Power (visible or not) that operates in a building or physical structure that you have

visited: e.g. a university building, an underground station, a museum or library, your

home, a supermarket.

iii. Power relations embedded in the features of your personal identity: e.g. sex and

gender, class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, nationality, and other categories of

identity that sociologists, political scientists, and census-takers like to put us in…

https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Power-A-Radical-View-Steven-Lukes

https://sk-sagepub-com.uow.idm.oclc.org/reference/power

These categories might also be willingly taken on by us so that we see them as part

of our identity. Reflect on how much choice you have in these aspects of your

identity.

How to Submit your Work

This week’s submission method is a bit different because you have more choices about how to submit it.

You will still submit to Turnitin. However, we encourage you to handwrite your notes and answers and to

take a photo of all your pages in one shot with a smart phone and then upload the file to Turnitin. Makes

sure it is in focus so it can be enlarged and read. Handwriting has the advantage of helping you to process

the material more thoroughly. We would therefore like you to try it.

However, if you find it hard to handwrite (for whatever reason), or you are not able to photograph your

notes with a smart phone, then you are free to type your notes up as you did previously.

Inside the document, whether hand written or typed, include your name, student number, seminar tutor’s

name, and the section headings from this sheet so we can easily see which questions you are answering.

Please save the file as: “Your Full Name, Exercise Sheet 5”. Submit your work by 12:00 noon on Monday,

October 19th through the appropriate Turnitin submission portal in the Week 4 Folder on Bb.

*You will find the essential readings on the Module Reading List under Learning Resources. When accessing

the books, you may be taken to a page giving you a range of access points. Choose “Shibboleth”, then enter

our university name. You should then be able to sign in with your usual Westminster login details. If you

encounter problems finding or accessing a source at any point, remember to Ask a Librarian!

Ongoing module info you are expected to know:

• Read the Module Handbook and get to know the Bb site, especially the Week-by-Week Folders.

• Read this ENTIRE Exercise Sheet and open all of the materials as early as possible, before asking

questions. Do not assume you already know how to submit the work as this has changed a bit.

• Leave sufficient time to complete the Exercise Sheet tasks (reading, thinking, notetaking, processing the

material, reflecting on the material, and answering questions!). It may well take longer than you think.

• Leave sufficient time to deal with the technology (finding, accessing and downloading resources, using

Turnitin etc). Please download everything you need as soon as possible, even if you will not read the

material until later. This gives you time to get help from the appropriate staff member if you have

access issues. Do not expect answers to questions on a weekend or last thing on a Friday.

o Problems using Bb or other online systems within the university? Spend time learning to use

them by visiting the Bb help pages and the Bb Institution Page (see under Sources of

Support on the PIA Bb site)

o Problems accessing or downloading reading materials? see* below and also Ask a Librarian

– library help pages

o Problems understanding module instructions? Ask the Module Leader via the Discussion

Board.

https://westminster-uk.libanswers.com/

http://blog.westminster.ac.uk/blackboardhelp/faqs-for-students/

https://westminster-uk.libanswers.com/

o Problems with understanding your reading or lecture material? Do your best to complete

your exercise sheet anyway. Then, ask your seminar tutor to clarify things in the seminar.

Ask the Module Leader on the PIA Discussion Board (you can start a new thread). If having

trouble regularly, see your seminar tutor or the Module Leader during their office hours

AND consider getting help from your Personal Tutor, Learning Support or Disability Support

if appropriate (see Sources of Support on the PIA Bb site).

• If you haven’t completed Exercise Sheet 1 yet, you can still do this now without penalty. This does not

count as one of your three free lates. If you completed it and sent it to your seminar tutor before

knowing who your personal tutor was, please make sure to send it to your personal tutor now (with the

covering letter) and copy this to Bridget.

• If you haven’t completed Exercise Sheets 2,3, or 4, you can still do this as you may get credit if you have

one of the circumstances described at the top of this Exercise Sheet.

• Watch the lectures on Power in the Week 4 Folder and make structured notes for your own use (not for

this Exercise Sheet). (The lectures will appear by early Wednesday afternoon this week)

• Catch up with any of the previous Lectures that you haven’t seen yet. Makes structured notes for your

own use.

BOOK REVIEW

Recasting power in its third dimension

Review of Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2005

David L. Swartz

Published online: 24 February 2007
# Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Lukes’s (1974) Power: A Radical View has become a widely cited classic in contemporary
political sociology. Referencing his three dimensions of power, particularly the third
dimension, has become a standard way of mapping the schools of thought regarding power.
Now Lukes (2005 [1974]) offers a new second edition that includes the original 1974 text
plus two new chapters that respond to criticisms of his earlier work and show how he has
developed, indeed changed, his thinking on the topic over the last 30 years. While it is
unclear that the 2005 work will enjoy the success of the 1974 statement, it usefully shows
contemporary shifts in thinking on this important issue, notably the recent influence of
European thinkers, like Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu, on the American “faces of
power” debate in the 1960s and early 1970s that pitted pluralist, elite, and class structure
perspectives against each other.

Historical context of first edition

It is worth recalling, as Lukes does, the power debate that the original book addressed. The
behaviorist, decision-making approach made famous by political scientist Robert Dahl
represented, for Lukes, the first dimension of power, one that was positivist in outlook,
focusing on empirical identification of actors who participated in decision-making where
influence over others could be readily discerned. Dahl’s work had challenged the elite
theories of Mills (2000 [1956]) and Hunter (1953). A significant community power debate
emerged around Dahl’s (1961) study Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American
City regarding the distribution of power in the post-World War II United States.

Dahl’s approach was soon challenged, however, by Bachrach and Baratz (1962) for
leaving out of consideration “what does not happen” in decision-making settings; namely,
those issues that are unwittingly neglected or consciously excluded from the agenda. Power
can be exercised through non-issues and non-decision making as well. For Lukes, this
represented the second dimension of power: control of the agenda.

Theor Soc (2007) 36:103–109
DOI 10.1007/s11186-006-9018-5

D. L. Swartz
Boston University, Boston, USA

It was, however, in the third dimension – power through domination – where Lukes saw
his principal contribution and where his early work most shaped subsequent thinking by
offering a “radical critique” of the approaches limited to just the first two dimensions. The
effects of power are not exhausted by decision making and agenda construction but could
operate at a deeper more invisible level. Influenced in particular by Gramsci’s notion of
“hegemony,” Lukes argued that the third dimension of power consists of deeply rooted
forms of political socialization where actors unwittingly follow the dictates of power even
against their best interests. Power as domination – the third dimension – asks “how do the
powerful secure the compliance (unwilling or willing) of those they dominate?” Lukes’s
first work was devoted for the most part to stressing the importance of this third dimension
of power.1

Conceptual shifts

In two new chapters, Lukes addresses key criticisms of the first edition and shows how his
thinking has shifted. There are five limitations he now finds in his earlier conceptualization
(pp. 64–65, 109).

First, a broad definition of power should not commit the “exercise fallacy” by limiting,
as the behaviorists do, focus to the visible exercise of power. Rather, one needs to think of
power as a capacity or ability that may or may not be explicitly activated in given
situations. Nor would an adequate definition commit the “vehicle fallacy.” A generic
definition of power should not be limited to valued resources. Power includes both
“resources” and “exercise” but, Lukes stresses, both point to a “potentiality, not an
actuality.” Lukes stresses even more now that power is a “dispositional concept.” This is the
conceptual language of Bourdieu.

Second, the definition of power should not be limited to only asymmetric power
relations, or “power over.” It also needs to deal with “power to.” Whereas the first edition
focused on power as domination, the second edition acknowledges the distinction long
made by numerous critics between “power to” and “power over.”2 Lukes is now willing to
admit that not all power is negative and zero sum. Some forms of power, including forms
exercised in relations of dependency can be positive, productive, and transformative.
Hence, domination is now seen as just one type of “power over” rather than capturing the
essence of all relations of dependency. Yet, the focus of his second book remains the
demeaning kind of power, domination. “How is willing compliance to domination
secured?” (p. 10) was the central question addressed by the first book and remains so in
the second (pp. 85–86).

This distinction is a needed one and shows a significant shift in Luke’s thinking from the
mid-seventies. The influence of Michel Foucault in particular seems important here as
power is no longer presented exclusively in zero sum terms; power not only represses but
also creates new significant effects.

1 While all three dimensions are operative and important to research, Lukes argues that in terms of the effects
of power they can be ranked in terms of their importance. Decision making presupposes an established
agenda and defining the agenda often calls on those less visible, subtle power dynamics that give consent.
The third dimension shapes the first and second dimensions and hence is the most fundamental.
2 Indeed in the work Lukes (1974) was dismissive of a focus on power as a capacity, ability, or facility
because he argued it did not point directly to asymmetrical relationships of conflicting interests and
domination that should be “the central interest in studying power relations in the first place” (p. 34).

104 Theor Soc (2007) 36:103–109

Third, Lukes now considers his third dimension of power to include several types of
“power over” not all of which are zero sum and negative in their effects on subordinates.
Lukes writes that “power over others can be productive, transformative, authoritative and
compatible with dignity,” even for dependents under certain conditions. The teacher–
student relation is a power relation though hopefully not always one of domination but
mostly a productive and transformative one in which the student grows intellectually – and
perhaps the teacher as well – even if in a relation of dependence.3

The focus of this revised edition, however, is limited to power as domination, the type of
“power over” where the interests of subordinates are distorted.

Fourth, his earlier conceptualization tended to assume that actors in asymmetrical
relations have unitary and opposing interests. But now he stresses that actors have multiple
interests and some may be conflictual.

And fifth, his earlier account tended to look only at binary relations between actors. Yet
in many situations there can be multiple actors, and with divergent interests.

Power and domination defined

With these criticisms and shifts in view in mind, Lukes updates his definition of power to
include “agents’ abilities to bring about significant effects, specifically by furthering their
own interests or affecting the interests of others, whether positively or negatively.” He sees
this definition as a generic, ahistorical, analytical, and universal. As a subcategory of this
generic definition of power, domination is now defined as “the capacity to secure
compliance to domination through the shaping of beliefs and desires, by imposing internal
constraints under historically changing circumstances.” Much of the new book defends the
claim that power as domination is important to research, despite the thorny conceptual and
methodological issues it raises, because it can help us evaluate the order of society.

Lukes reaffirms his earlier and frequently cited claim that power is “essentially a
contested concept” and therefore inescapably political. Power cannot be a fully objective
concept because value judgments will always enter into selecting which outcomes of power
matter most. There are no decision rules inherent in the concept of power for determining
which outcomes are most important. The significance of outcomes is generally thought of
in terms of the interests involved. But where real interests lie is “inherently controversial.”
This normative aspect of power is stressed even more in the revised work where Lukes
abandons any presumption favoring a materialist understanding of real interests. Social
actors, he writes, “do not have unitary or dual, but multiple and conflicting interests, which
are interests of different kinds, and their identities are not confined to their imputed class
positions and destinies” (p. 145). Religion, race, gender, patriotism – and a host of others –
as well as class can become identification loci that generate their own particular interests.
Along with recognizing an expanded array of possible interests, Lukes re-conceptualizes
the Marxist notion of “false consciousness” to think of domination as anything that
misleads and compromises individual autonomy. This of course expands enormously the
range of possibilities and enriches the research agenda; but if one abandons a baseline
reference by which one identifies real interests, what happens to explanation? Lukes

3 Lukes’s (1974) statement was closer to the climate of the 1960s, when traditional pedagogical relations
were sharply criticized for resembling “power over” rather than cultivating “power to” dispositions.

Theor Soc (2007) 36:103–109 105

answers by simply declaring that the real interests identified are “a function of one’s
explanatory purpose, framework, and methods, which in turn have to be justified” (p. 148).
If this is the case, then Lukes seems to embrace a radical theoretical pluralism or recourse to
empirical data as the final arbiter.

Still, Lukes insists that power remains a useful analytical concept. He rejects the
position taken by some, like Bruno Latour, that, because of its inherently normative
character, power must be discarded as an analytical tool. And it can be explanatory if that is
not understood in positivist terms meaning “law-like explanations of outcomes that yield
determinate predictions.” Yet it is not clear what kind of explanation Lukes wants if the
power to mislead can occur over a great variety of interests. What is the most vital interest
that cannot be realized in any given situation because of domination?

Drawing from Foucault and

Bourdieu

Lukes therefore enumerates a new, enlarged definition of power and a more complex,
nuanced, and qualified definition of the particular form of “power over” that he calls
domination. In doing so, he draws from a number of empirical and theoretical works since
1974, absorbing and integrating their contributions into his own revised definitions. But in
doing so he does not confront the full force of the works from which he draws and therefore
gives a fragmented interpretation of their contributions. Michel Foucault and Pierre
Bourdieu are two thinkers whom Lukes sees as contributing to a richer understanding of his
third dimension of power. But Lukes does not really confront Foucault and Bourdieu, only
aspects of their thinking to impose his own definition.

Foucault

Lukes sees Foucault helping to enhance awareness of how domination is secured through
compliance. Foucault’s insights into the intimate connection between power and
knowledge, particularly expert knowledge, and the corporal as well as cognitive
expressions of power have helped increase awareness of the third dimension of power.
Moreover, Foucualt stresses the productive as well as constraining dynamics and effects of
power. However, Lukes divides rather schematically Foucault’s thinking on power into two
phases: his early work on discipline and the first volume on sexuality and the subsequent
writings from 1978 to his death in 1984 on what he called “governmentality.” In the first
phase power is pervasive throughout all of social life. It not only constrains by setting up
limits, boundaries, etc; it also constitutes “subjects” themselves. There is no escape from
power.

Although this gives power a positive side, the problem, says Lukes, is that this key idea
comes clothed in a “Nietzschean rhetoric” that seems to deny the sheer possibility of
freedom and truth independent of the effects of power. It undermines completely the ideal
of a “rational, autonomous moral agent.” Completely lost is any kind of emancipatory ideal
in which individuals are able to free themselves, at least to some extent from the negative
effects of power or that power could be based on the “rational consent of its subjects.”
Lukes rejects this “ultra-radical view,” believing that it “made no sense,” though Lukes
finds some hope in the second phase of Foucault’s work where he believes the French
theorist backed away from the earlier claims for the all pervasive reach of power. Still,

106 Theor Soc (2007) 36:103–109

Lukes seems perplexed that Foucault’s writings have had such an extraordinary impact on a
generation of scholars. Why? Lukes can only conclude that it is because Foucault has
himself exercised an “interesting kind of power” – the “power of seduction.” And he backs
up this claim in a note with Rodney Needham saying something similar of Durkheim’s
Elementary Forms of Religious Life – probably all wrong but great capacity to generate
explanations. But what are we to conclude from this – yet another frustrated Brit out
maneuvered by the ever resourceful French!

Bourdieu

Lukes draws on Bourdieu to help with understanding how power as domination is
internalized as part of the habitus, particularly Bourdieu’s claim that the effectiveness of
power as domination is enhanced by its “naturalization,” where what is arbitrary and
unequal appears to actors as natural and objective, and by the “misrecognition” of its
origins and modes of operation. These insights, Lukes believes, offer intriguing avenues for
empirical investigation into how compliance becomes an internalized disposition.

But Lukes differs with Bourdieu in weighing the degree to which symbolic power is
effective and causal. Lukes agrees with Bourdieu that power is more effective the less
visible it is to the consciousness of actors. But Lukes would grant to actors a greater degree
of reflective awareness than Bourdieu in general seems to do. Power may elicit more
resistance than Bourdieu seems to grant. More importantly, it may not go as undetected as
“naturalization” and “misrecognition” suggest for there may be a high degree of
consciousness of oppressive structures and yet consent to comply for some measure of
happiness, success, and security. Lukes considers that the dominate can acquiesce in their
domination in the thin sense (mere resignation to dominant values) as well as the thick
sense (actual belief in dominant values) to draw on Scott’s (1990) conceptual distinction.

But Lukes picks up only on the symbolic power aspect of Bourdieu’s work. While
certainly one of the most distinctive features of Bourdieu’s conceptual framework, there are
two other aspects of Bourdieu’s thinking on power that merit attention. Bourdieu analyzes
power in three overlapping but analytically distinct ways: power in legitimation (symbolic
violence), power in valued resources (various types of capital), and power in specific
spheres (fields) of struggle.

In Bourdieu’s sociology, power also takes the form of resources, which Bourdieu calls
capitals, that can be created, accumulated, exchanged, and consumed. His idea of cultural
capital is most widely known but his work includes an array of capitals, such as social
capital, economic capital, academic capital, and statist capital, that are unevenly distributed
among social classes. Lukes does not consider Bourdieu’s other types of capitals, only
symbolic power. Moreover, capitals, as forms of power, exist not in isolation but are
relational. They operate in what Bourdieu calls “fields,” which are structured spaces of
struggle over specific types of capitals. Lukes does not consider Bourdieu’s concept of
field, yet in Bourdieu’s thinking field is also helpful in addition to symbolic power to
understand why the dominated come to accept their positions of domination: they become
caught up in the logic of the competitive games they play in fields. Lukes misses this key
point as he seems to think that power goes misrecognized in Bourdieu’s thinking only
because of the action of habitus. Nor does he consider the particular power field, the
political field, where the accumulation of power for its own sake, seems to be the operative
logic and hence creates a particular kind of power resource, political capital, that does not
reduce to other forms of capitals in other fields.

Theor Soc (2007) 36:103–109 107

Conclusion

Lukes is right to see both French thinkers as contributing to our understanding of forms of
power that are both discursive and corporal and that shape much of social life. Yet, Lukes
offers a reading of Foucault and Bourdieu essentially designed to enrich and elaborate his
preferred conception of power as domination (the third dimension of power). One would
not want to look at this work for a general assessment of these two French thinkers’ views
on power.

Furthermore, Lukes’s focus on a particular type of domination leaves unexplored key
expressions of power, such as the capacity of the state to act on its subjects or inter-state
relations. Here Lukes’s treatment of power reflects the terms of the American power debate
that the 1974 book was designed to address; namely, whether and in what way local and
national politics might be dominated by factions, sectorial interests, or social class. Missing
in that debate and in Lukes’s work is the capacity of the state to legislate and regulate
broader and broader areas of social life. The important shift to state centered analyses of
power, illustrated in Bringing the State Back In (Evans, Rueschemeyer, & Skocpol, 1985),
gives greater attention to the various capabilities of state power that were not central to the
earlier American debate nor in either of Lukes’s two books.

At the end of the book, Lukes offers suggestions for further reading on power but he
does not offer exemplary empirical studies that apply the framework he is suggesting,
beyond Gaventa’s (1980) study of Appalachian miners and Crenson’s (1971) study of air
pollution in two US cities that he rightly lauded in his 1974 statement. He references some
recent Foucault inspired works that both exemplify and point up the limitations of
Foucault’s thinking, notably that of Hayward (2000), De-facing Power. Even Bourdieu’s
extensive empirical work goes unexplored. Yet Lukes is clearly interested in empirical
research and wants his work to generate more. But he offers no new model empirical
studies that illustrate what he is proposing. More disconcerting is that it is not clear what an
empirical study following his framework would look like. The book offers no
methodological suggestions for the researcher interested in following Lukes’s conceptual
framework in both choosing and analyzing an empirical object of power. Just what kind of
empirical research would his framework lead to? Lukes does not say.

Nor does Lukes propose mechanisms of institutionalization to reduce the perverse
effects of domination. If conceptualizing power is not simply an armchair pastime, and
presumably for Lukes it is not, then a framework might be expected to point to types of
research and perhaps even action that might hold the most promise for checking the type of
domination that Lukes believes is real, widespread, and very limiting to individual
potential. We do not find such suggestions in this book.

Still, Lukes has written a book that shows how an important thinker revisits an
influential statement and revises and expands it. This work shows evidence of a first-rate
mind that is not afraid of expanding and altering earlier conceptualizations. And it shows
increased awareness of key conceptual issues that need addressing in research on the more
subtle yet real effects of power.

Acknowledgments I wish to thank the April 24, 2006 gathering of the Boston Area Social Theory Group
(Julian Go, Esther Gonzalez Martinez, Jim Mcquaid, and George Psathas) for engaging with me in a lively
discussion of the Lukes book. That discussion helped shape some of the critical points I make in this review.

108 Theor Soc (2007) 36:103–109

References

Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947–952.
Crenson, M. (1971). The un-politics of air pollution: A study of non-decisionmaking in the cities. Baltimore,

MD: John Hopkins

University Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.
Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.) (1985). Bringing the state back in. New York:

Cambridge University Press.
Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Oxford:

Clarendon.
Hayward, C. R. (2000). De-facing power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, F. (1953). Community power structure: A study of decision makers. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina Press.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillian.
Lukes, S. (2005 [1974]). Power. A radical view. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mills, C. W. (2000[1956]). The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

David L. Swartz teaches sociology at Boston University. He is the author of Culture & Power: The
Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu (University of Chicago Press, 1997) and co-editor (with Vera L. Zolberg) of
After Bourdieu: Influence, Critique, Elaboration (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004). Swartz’s research
interests include the study of elites and stratification, education, culture, religion, and social theory.

Theor Soc (2007) 36:103–109 109

Recasting power in its third dimension
Historical context of first edition
Conceptual shifts
Power and domination defined
Drawing from Foucault and Bourdieu
Foucault
Bourdieu
Conclusion
References

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts false /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 150 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 150
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 15 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 600
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName ()
/PDFXTrapped /False
/Description << /CHS
/CHT
/DAN
/DEU
/ESP
/FRA
/ITA (Utilizzare queste impostazioni per creare documenti Adobe PDF adatti per visualizzare e stampare documenti aziendali in modo affidabile. I documenti PDF creati possono essere aperti con Acrobat e Adobe Reader 5.0 e versioni successive.)
/JPN
/KOR
/NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken waarmee zakelijke documenten betrouwbaar kunnen worden weergegeven en afgedrukt. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.)
/NOR
/PTB
/SUO
/SVE
/ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents for journal articles and eBooks for online presentation. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.)
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [595.276 841.890] >> setpagedevice