Power is one of the most important concepts in the social sciences. The meaning of the word discussed and developed by many people such as academics and philosophers. Steven Luke is a political and social theorist. He defined the meaning of power that “ A exercises power over B when A affects in a manner contrary to B’s interests (Luke, S. 1974:30)”. Since the definition is too common, he defines powers in his own terminology, which says three dimensions power which are the one-dimensional view of power, the second-dimensional view of power and the three-dimensional view of power. He uses these three dimensions to study power. Each dimensional view of power illustrates a different level of control. According to Luke, this is the study
…show more content…
This view is about power over interests. He claims that it requires and acceptance of the status quo due to accepted the underlying ideology. It is accepted by people that the system hold power because of believe on system. Furthermore, it allows rulers to shape the preferences and the masses of perception so he argues that his radical dimension is the most insidious exercise of power. In this radical view, power assumes the consequences of unintended domination and power occurs the absence of conflict due to power exercised as an action and inaction. In addition, potential issues keep out in politics without the use of observable conflict and A may control the political agenda. The focus of the dimension is the influence of collective forces over the cognitions. In his empirical research, Luke is conscious of the difficulties to using the three-dimensional view of power. Following this view, the classical objections have many problems. A case in this point, the first problem is about ‘ how to justify the relevant counterfactuals’. It means that he needs specifying the mechanisms such as A abstained from acting to prevent B from doing so. Furthermore, other problem is ‘ how to identify the process of the exercising of power. So, the three-dimensional view of power represents three features which are the exercise of power involve inaction that observable action, the concepts of power may be unconscious and power may be exercised by groups or institutions. There is a difference between the second-dimensional view of power and the three-dimensional view of power such as their perspectives about observable behavior as an indicator to power. Therefore, “ A has control over the political agenda through using coercion, authority, force, influence and manipulation restrict the ability of B to participate in the second dimension.
This view is about power over interests. He claims that it requires and acceptance of the status quo due to accepted the underlying ideology. It is accepted by people that the system hold power because of believe on system. Furthermore, it allows rulers to shape the preferences and the masses of perception so he argues that his radical dimension is the most insidious exercise of power. In this radical view, power assumes the consequences of unintended domination and power occurs the absence of conflict due to power exercised as an action and inaction. In addition, potential issues keep out in politics without the use of observable conflict and A may control the political agenda. The focus of the dimension is the influence of collective forces over the cognitions. In his empirical research, Luke is conscious of the difficulties to using the three-dimensional view of power. Following this view, the classical objections have many problems. A case in this point, the first problem is about ‘ how to justify the relevant counterfactuals’. It means that he needs specifying the mechanisms such as A abstained from acting to prevent B from doing so. Furthermore, other problem is ‘ how to identify the process of the exercising of power. So, the three-dimensional view of power represents three features which are the exercise of power involve inaction that observable action, the concepts of power may be unconscious and power may be exercised by groups or institutions. There is a difference between the second-dimensional view of power and the three-dimensional view of power such as their perspectives about observable behavior as an indicator to power. Therefore, “ A has control over the political agenda through using coercion, authority, force, influence and manipulation restrict the ability of B to participate in the second dimension.