Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Sociologically oriented researchers have consistently found that power is highly centralised while scholars trained in political science have just as regularly argued that power is widely diffused. Such are the issues that the pluralists bring up against the elitists and they are well-founded. The pluralists, for their part, concentrate their attention not upon the sources of power but its exercise.
|Published (Last):||16 December 2009|
|PDF File Size:||4.73 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Already have an account? Log in! The exercise of power aims to maintain the status quo by determining the rules of the game Bacharach and Baratz, , p.
Bachrach and Baratz support that behavior of individuals is related to power when a person limits the scope of the discussion. Parsons would agree to this if the limit of the discussion is due to the coercion that the person in power may feel from those who put them there. Control in this case is in the hands of those who can manipulate the issues to be considered. Parsons also speaks to how people in power will respond to power voluntarily where we want a society to impose its power on people who violate laws that we the people as a collectivity determined should be followed which I feel would goes against the status quo Bacharach and Baratz deem as unsafe.
I think Parsons would agree with some of what Bachrach and Baratz have to say about power, but disagree too. They may agree on the importance of social interaction in the exercise of power, but they seem to have different perspectives on the ideas of influence and conflict.
In Bachrach and Baratz, those in power are portrayed as manipulative people, actively working to keep others out of power — actively working at not making decisions, keeping others in their place. Parsons seems more optimistic about the power of the system to reproduce itself in a natural, positive way — through legitimate leaders authority and social contracts among collectivities within society.
Wolfinger agrees with Dahl and sociologists in the power of relationships. While not disputing the existence of nondecisions, he points out that it is very difficult to measure the lack of power or to what extent input was limited in order to determine the impact of a nondecision. He feels that nondecisions are not merely an outcome of restrictive use of power but are also influenced by various outside factors. Wolfinger takes issue with the study of the concept of nondecisions as a means of power.
Dahl would agree with Bacharach and Baratz in that less obvious forms of power are present and working within an organization. This, however, would be very difficult to measure and develop any type of theory of power around. He tried to determine the influence of various senators during a specific time period to determine their influence or power over others.
The covert ways in which Bachrach and Baratz discuss power would be very difficult to analyze. As I stated on the Wolfinger posting, the idea of power being exhibited through decisions and non-decisions still sounds like the exercise or use of power. If one can achieve a desired end by doing or not doing something In this sense, overt action or intentional inaction sound to me like means of using power that depend on expediency.
From Fooucault, the question would have less to do with methods, I believe, and mroe to do with an interest in how those decisions or non-decision affected the subjects, as well as how they helped to 'form' the subjects. I also believe that Foucault would agree more with the political scientists who believe that power is widely diffused, rather than the sociologists who believe that power is highly concentrated.
Dahl would agree with Bacharach and Baratz with the personal relationship and power in an organization. However, the unrecognized side would be difficult to quantify in any mathematical format as Dahl was using to measure power in his article.
I would question Dahls opinion as it relates to the power less inviduals. Foucault's description of power can be related to the two faces of power described by Bachrach and Baratz. Again, the ability for those in power to either cause decisions to be made or not made the "restrictive" face seems similar to the way in which the bouurgoisie developed its power structure to control and ensure a productive system, which of course benefits them and those above them in social stature.
Maintaining a status quo through these two faces is in accord with Foucault, as well. Bachrach and Baratz would take Dahl's view of power in what he terms as "actors" and analyze it from more of a socio-political means. While he would definitely agree with the two authors, the relation between the two actors, identified in both articles as A and B, would not be compared in such a bi-lateral fashion as these authors seem to champion.
Tip: To turn text into a link, highlight the text, then click on a page or file from the list above. Lewis University Organizational Theory log in help. To edit this page, request access to the workspace.
Although political scientists themselves, Bachrach and Baratz contend that neither notion gives the whole picture. This side of power put forth by Robert Dahl is the side that the authors believe political scientists do recognize.
It is this form of power that they feel can inform the first. This "restrictive face of power" involves the "dynamics of nondecisionmaking" Bachrach and Baratz, , p. In other words, influence is used to limit the scope of discussion or to prevent conflicts from ever being brought to the forefront. While they recognize that identifying these restrictive forces is a subjective act, they discredit in advance any suggestion that this is not a useful construct of power.
The following looks more specifically at the theory put forth by Bachrach and Baratz. Behavior plays a critical role in understanding power in its restrictive sense. Bachrach and Baratz also support that behavior of individuals is related to power when a person limits the scope of the discussion. The authors say, "Of course power is exercised when A participates in the making of decisions that affect B.
But power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the extent that A succeeds in doing this, B is prevented This sounds exactly like a district with which we are familiar, in that you can only participate aka talk in administrator meetings if you have been put on the agenda.
Agendas consist of routine, logistical items like lawn-mowers and deadlines to submit documents, whereas items of potential discussion like installing video cameras in the hallways are not "discussable" items but are merely placed on the agenda to inform administrators that it will be happening. Control is in the hands of those who can manipulate the issues to be considered, not in the hands of those who make the concrete decisions. We believe this is how many superintendents exercise control over their school boards.
They bring "safe" issues to the table for school board consideration and reserve the right to personally arbitrate other decisions. This can also be seen between principals and teachers. Often committees with teachers are formed to decide relatively inoffensive things while more substanative decisions are made without discussion. These actions give power. It seems that power in its restrictive sense is about avoiding conflict. In addition, Bachrach and Baratz point out that "to the extent that a person or group - consciously or unconsciously - creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or groups has power" , p.
An important aspect of the previous statement is the "consciously or unconsciously" part because it supposes that power exists even if it is not consciously recognized as power. Is this a dangerous form of power? If an action is not recognized as power it may not be questioned or challenged. Individuals with power have their interests either advanced or protected by the ability of the individual to prevent others from even bringing up any issues that might result in decisions that go against their preferences.
On the other hand, individuals without power or with less power are blocked from advancing their own interests out of self-preservation. Bacharach and Baratz describe a professor who is ready to bring up an issue at a meeting but chooses not to at the last moment because he recognizes that it against his self-interest to raise an issue that may not have wide support and that would be nearly impossible to address given existing structures.
Bacharach and Baratz: "Two Faces of Power". Page Tools Insert links Insert links to other pages or uploaded files. Pages Images and files. Insert a link to a new page. No images or files uploaded yet.
Insert image from URL. Printable version. Join this workspace. To join this workspace, request access. Recent Activity. Show 0 new item s. View Edit. Behavior: What is the relationship of individuals' behavior to the exercise of power?
What role does behavior play? Decision making and control: Who makes decisions and who has control? How do decision making and control function in the exercise of power? Conflict: What is the status of conflict, and what is its role in the exercise of power? Interests: How are individuals' interests advanced? Moral orientation: What are the normative goals that the exercise of power aims to achieve?
Pages Images and files Insert a link to a new page Loading Insert image from URL Tip: To turn text into a link, highlight the text, then click on a page or file from the list above. Join this workspace To join this workspace, request access.
Bacharach and Baratz: "Two Faces of Power"
Two Faces of Power
The Two Faces of Power by Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz — A Summary