Third Dimension Of Power Research Articles

Power and Personal Property Law in the Age of Informational Capitalism

Platform entities are wresting control and power from populations of users by asserting property rights in the means of production of informational capitalism. The platform entities maintain strict control over (or property in) these means of production through their ability to manipulate an array of private laws such as contract and property laws. This wresting of power from the user to the platform entity has happened largely out of the purview and consciousness of most users. Studying power exposes the mechanisms by which platform entities have achieved their power and the damage that outsized power can cause. This paper takes a novel approach to analyzing this type of power through what Steven Lukes referred to as the third dimension of power. It examines some of the ways that platform entities have been able to accrue enormous social power by manipulating their technologies, their users, and the law in almost imperceptible ways through control and normalization. It investigates the role of the law, and particularly property law in formalizing and authorizing the transfer of property and power to the platform entities that has created vast inequality between platform entities and their users.

Platform power, technology, and law: consumer powerlessness in informational capitalism

ABSTRACT The shift in the political economy from market-based to informational capitalism is wrought by increased use of technology and the adoption of platforms as the dominant networks of transaction. This has led to a concomitant increase in power of the platform entities to exert control over substantial parts of world populations. The platform entities have accrued and exercise this power including through their use of user data, by controlling the discourse and the imaginary surrounding the platforms, and through the affordances of the platforms themselves. Another of the technologies used by the platform entities to gain and entrench power is the law itself. Informational capitalism evolved within a system of existing laws. The way that platform entities have in turn enforced, ignored, and manipulated laws requires us to re-examine the law’s relationship with power. This paper examines theories of power and focuses on Steven Lukes’ radical view of power in three dimensions to help understand that relationship between power, technology, and consumer laws. The paper sets out some of the ways that consumers are manipulated, including through the use of law, in what Lukes describes as the third dimension of power.

Study Skills: neoliberalism’s perfect Tinkerbell

ABSTRACT We argue that current approaches to Study Skills support are presented as being a panacea for resolving the issues presented by neoliberal approaches to educational expansion. We argue that for such a panacea to be believed pedagogically effective, four key tenets must be adhered to: Study skills is a definable entity; it is valuable for every subject; it can be embedded, and; Study Skills helps students succeed in their subjects. We argue these tenets are devoid of any sound pedagogical basis, yet that they are ideal for, and align with, neoliberal ideologies and free market political economy. We consider the organisational structuration of Study Skills as underpinned by Lukes’s third dimension of power, outlining how Study Skills represents a constitutive fantasy, a magical Tinkerbell for all to believe in that solves everyone’s problems. We propose HE dispels this Tinkerbell by ceasing to believe in it, and instead resources subject-based support.

Power and domination in sport policy and politics ‒ three intertwined levels of exercising power

ABSTRACTIn this article, I discuss the fruitfulness of a three-level approach for studying power and domination in sport policy and politics, derived from the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Steven Lukes. This approach provides new insight into the deep structures that form sport policy and politics. Bourdieu’s concepts of social field, symbolic capital and symbolic power are invaluable for examining and revealing important aspects of power in sport policy and politics. To paint a fuller picture of power-relations, I have supplemented the Bourdieusian approach with Lukes’ three-dimensional perspective on power. Lukes’ third dimension of power resembles Bourdieu’s emphasis on how one’s perceptions and preferences are shaped to legitimate the existing order of things. I argue further that Lukes’ second dimension of power – focusing on situations where decisions in potential conflicts are hindered (i.e. agenda setting) – partly relates to Bourdieu’s perspective. However, Bourdieu focuses less on the direct exercising of power in political processes, which resembles the first dimension advocated by Lukes. I argue that it is necessary for this dimension of power to be incorporated into the study of sport policy. Moreover, the three dimensions can be viewed as intertwined levels in an analysis of specific social fields, specifically the sport (policy) field. Norwegian sport policy in general and local facility policy specifically serves as the empirical basis for the current analysis.

Company secretary: a role of breadth and majesty

Purpose This paper aims to present the outcomes from 40 one-to-one semi-structured interviews and 12 focus group sessions with company secretaries, chairmen, CEOs, chief financial officer (CFOs), senior independent director (SIDs) and NEDs, about the role of the company secretary. Design/methodology/approach Lukes’ (1974, 2005) third dimension of power is engaged in thematic analysis of this strategic leadership role and its contribution to Board effectiveness. Findings The findings identify “discretionary capacity” as being critical to effective role contribution. Research limitations/implications Whilst the inquiry included international participants, e.g. multi-national Board members and company secretaries, it was conducted within the UK. Practical implications Having a range of discretion is particularly necessary at this time, when the new governance regime is broadening its demands on the role of the company secretary to interact with wider stakeholders. Social implications Better Board effectiveness is critical to broader sustainability of business in society. Originality/value An emergent model of the company secretary role is offered as a tool for building discretionary capacity, based on key technical, commercial and social characteristics, in their contexts – understood together as “Breadth” and “Majesty”. Breadth establishes a competency, whereas majesty, the refined high-level social qualities. This study concludes that the company secretary role is highly dependent on the preferences of the chairman, in enabling them to make an effective contribution to the Board.

Critical Review on Power in Organization: Empowerment in Human Resource Development

This study aims to analyze current practices, discuss about empowerment from theoretical perspectives on power in organization, and suggest the empowerment model based on organizational culture and the role of HRD. By reviewing Classical viewpoint of power, Luke’s three-dimensional power and Foucault’s disciplinary power, we discussed power and empowerment in organizational contexts. Power in organization can be conceptualized based on classical view, Foucault and critical view and Lukes’ three dimensional power. True employee empowerment is related to the third dimension of power. The role of HRD for empowerment can be categorized into two folds: (a) enhancing motivation and commitment in terms of psychological empowerment and,(b) bringing real power to employees. The proposed empowerment model assumes that organizational culture influences the dimensions of empowerment and the role of HRD for supporting empowerment. HRD needs to assess meaning of the power critically in particular contexts (Morrell & Wilkinson, 2002) before planning and implementing specific training and development (T&D) interventions for performance improvement and/or organization development (OD) interventions for innovation. This study attempts to review, analyze, and discuss issues regarding employee empowerment from human resource development (HRD) perspectives. Implications for the roles of HRD and empowerment model are proposed.

Critical review on power in organization: empowerment in human resource development

PurposeThis paper aims to analyze current practices, discuss empowerment from the theoretical perspectives on power in organizations and suggest an empowerment model based on the type of organizational culture and the role of human resource development (HRD).Design/methodology/approachBy reviewing the classic viewpoint of power, Lukes’ three-dimensional power and Foucault’s disciplinary power, we discuss power and empowerment in organizational contexts.FindingsPower in organizations can be conceptualized based on the classic view, Foucault and critical view and Lukes’ three-dimensional power. We found that true employee empowerment is related to the third dimension of power. The role of HRD for empowerment can be categorized into enhancing motivation and commitment in terms of psychological empowerment and bringing real power to employees. The proposed empowerment model assumes that organizational culture influences the dimensions of empowerment and the role of HRD for supporting empowerment.Practical implicationsHRD needs to critically assess the meaning of power in particular contexts (Morrell and Wilkinson, 2002) before planning and implementing specific training and development interventions for performance improvement and/or organization development interventions for innovation.Originality/valueThis study attempts to review, analyze and discuss issues regarding employee empowerment from HRD perspectives. Implications for the roles of HRD and the empowerment model are proposed.

The dominance of big pharma: power

The purpose of this paper is to provide a normative model for the assessment of the exercise of power by Big Pharma. By drawing on the work of Steven Lukes, it will be argued that while Big Pharma is overtly highly regulated, so that its power is indeed restricted in the interests of patients and the general public, the industry is still able to exercise what Lukes describes as a third dimension of power. This entails concealing the conflicts of interest and grievances that Big Pharma may have with the health care system, physicians and patients, crucially through rhetorical engagements with Patient Advocacy Groups that seek to shape public opinion, and also by marginalising certain groups, excluding them from debates over health care resource allocation. Three issues will be examined: the construction of a conception of the patient as expert patient or consumer; the phenomenon of disease mongering; the suppression or distortion of debates over resource allocation.

Foundations of organization power

I shall argue that the foundations of organization power were laid down in practice through theories of power – in the sense that they sought to explain power – but through quite pragmatic practices that were not necessarily regarded as embodying a theory of power, which I shall maintain they most assuredly did. Thus, in a second move, I shall argue that while these practices began with a focus on the body of the employee they moved on to consider their consciousness and soul. Third, I shall briefly consider the main themes in organization theories' treatment of power, organized around notions of system rationality and uncertainty. These have an implicit idealism attached to them, I shall suggest. Fourth, I shall switch focus to the broader canvass of social theory in the post‐war era and suggest that this has also displayed a strongly idealist streak, focusing especially on the celebrated structuralist account of power as a matter of layered dimension that Steven Lukes (1974, 2005) produced. Fifth, I shall contrast the idealism of this approach with a more pragmatic conception of power, one that can be found in the perspectives with which I opened the paper, perspectives that derive from more Foucauldian‐influenced currents of contemporary social theory. Drawing on these, I will suggest a different way of understanding Lukes' radical third dimension of power as a means of organizing and rationalizing innovations in power relations, drawing on the literature of the ‘dominant ideology thesis’ (Abercrombie et al.1980) to do so. Finally, I shall suggest switching from the structuralist metaphors of dimensions to an imagery of flows as a more appropriate model for understanding power relations.

Suffering and Powerlessness: The Significance of Promoting Participation in Rights-Based Approaches to Health

In a rights framework, participation is inextricably related to power. Through effective participation, we can challenge political and other forms of exclusion that prevent people from having power over the decisions and processes that affect their lives and health. Yet concepts of power are as contested as notions of participation. Thus, I argue here that, far from there being a formula for what participation means in a rights-based approach to health, the way in which we conceptualize the role of participation is closely linked to how we understand power and, in turn, the purpose and meaning of human rights themselves. I outline three ways of thinking about domination and participation-as-empowerment. In a liberal understanding of how power operates, there is an overarching concern for ensuring processes of participation that enable competing groups to express their voices on the proverbial level playing field, so that no one group may impose its will on the others. Critics of this approach assert that it ignores the power relations in which participatory processes are embedded, which determine which of the issues that affect health get decided--and which issues are never brought to the table because they are systematically blocked. If a second dimension of power entails deciding what gets decided, participatory approaches need to challenge the definition of what is "up for contention," or they risk merely legitimating social control. A third dimension of power entails securing compliance from oppressed groups by shaping their perceptions of their own interests. A human rights-based approach concerned with the effects of this form of domination on people's health calls for developing critical consciousness before there can be any truly "empowering" participation. I conclude by arguing that much is at stake in defining participation in a human rights framework to health, because in defining what we are calling for, we will determine how relevant human rights are to the daily struggles of people around the world for well-being.

Research for Democracy: Linking Community Organizing and Research to Leverage Blight Policy

Urban scholarship has focused on the role of power and politics in fostering uneven development, showing that urban patterns are not inevitable but controllable. Yet shifting power from one group to another is easier said than done. How may community organizations acquire leverage that permits them to alter political decision making around space and urban development? This article describes a collaboration in Philadelphia between a citywide faith‐based coalition and a university policy research center. Called “Research for Democracy,” this collaboration combined research and organizing sophistication to successfully reshape citywide policy around neighborhood blight. Research for Democracy became a collaboration where community leaders' experiences were voiced in the collective research experience. This helped to reinforce alternative views on blight and break down the third dimension of power—the ability to shape the conceptions and ideas of the powerless. Armed with research ammunition that mirrored people's shared experiences, organizers strategically worked with other political actors to reshape the policy agenda around blight and break down the second dimension of power—policy agenda setting. As a consequence, Philadelphia's blight policy was broadened to include money for neighborhood stabilization, acquisition, and improvements, not solely demolition as was originally proposed.

Three-Dimensional Power: A Discussion of Steven Lukes' Power: A Radical View

Lukes' third dimension of power exists where people are subject to domination and acquiesce in that domination. The intentional stance allows us to predict and explain others' behaviour in ways that those agents may not recognise. It denies agents' privileged access to their own reasons for actions. Using the intentional stance we can understand how agents may acquiesce in their own domination. We can also make distinctions between those who dominate knowingly and those who dominate without realising they do so. It allows us to distinguish morally such cases and to understand the power structure without falling into the Foucaultian trap of seeing all social relationships in the same relativistic light and where all – dominant and dominated alike – are subject to the same power relations and moral responsibility.

Sexual Harassment as an Exercise of Power

This article argues that the key to the explanation as to why sexual harassment is a feature of organizational life lies in the issue of power. Yet there has been little attempt to link sexual harassment with theories or explanatory models of power. This article first takes Lukes's (1986) three‐dimensional model as a framework to explore how harassment may be understood as an exercise of power at different levels then shows how radical feminist and post‐structuralist analyses overlap with and are distinct from Lukes's third dimension of power.

Midwives, informed choice and power: part 3

Qualitative data were gathered in a study of how midwives facilitate and women make informed choices in pregnancy. Issues of power permeated the data. This series of three articles will interpret and discuss these issues in relation to Lukes' (1974) conceptualization of power, and theories regarding empowerment. This final article discusses Lukes' third dimension of power, and relates data from the study to more recent ideas about empowerment.

Power and political power positions in maternity care

Power is not a new concept in relation to maternity care. However, discussion regarding the use and misuse of power is becoming high profile. Throughout history it is possible to trace the development of certain ‘power positions’ for obstetricians, midwives and women. This article discusses how socio-political developments and may have shaped the above ‘power positions’. The issue of obstetric and midwifery power reflects a historical power struggle for both ‘expert’ and ‘positional’ power status. The power position of women is more complex and this article highlights that a covert ‘third dimension of power’ may have been involved in shaping women's perception of their own needs. The implementation of Changing Childbirth (Department of Health, 1993) is challenging established positions and this explores how obstetricians, midwives and women are responding. Attitudes are changing and the ideology of women's empowerment is becoming accepted and valued. The challenge is now for women, midwives and obstetricians to re-examine power positions, abandon the power struggle and to work together in creating a positive climate for change.

Money in the Household: Some Underlying Issues of Power

This paper addresses criticisms of a number of papers (Vogler and Pahl, 1993, 1994; Vogler, 1994) in which we attempted to explore the relationships between money, power and inequality within marriage. Subsequent criticisms have mainly centred around the concept of power that we used in those papers. It has been suggested that we either lacked a theory of power (Rottman, 1996) or that our conceptualisation of power as control over decision making was too limited (Shove, 1993). I would argue however, that while it was not made explicit in our original papers our findings point towards a more general theory of power in the household, namely to a modified version of Lukes' three dimensional model of power. While we initially conceptualised power as control over decision making (Lukes' first dimension of power) our findings also show the importance of ideological and cultural factors (Lukes' third dimension of power) as both a cause and a consequence of the allocative systems couples use to organise money within the household. More theoretically, I also suggest that discourses about money within the household may be part of, and operate in a similar way to discourses of decision making at the broader political level. It may therefore be possible to conceptualise the different ways of managing money within the household as mini political systems akin to different sorts of democracy at the broader political level, and with similar consequences for gender relations.

The third dimension of power

The third dimension of power

Elite Control and Citizen Mobilization in a Small Midwestern Town

This paper analyzes the initial success and ultimate failure of a challenge to the economically and politically dominant class in a small town in the U.S. Midwest. The case study is used to elucidate the workings of what Lukes has called the third dimension of power, the ability of the powerful to engineer the consent of the relatively less powerful.

CHANGING AGENDAS AND POLICY COMMUNITIES: AGRICULTURAL ISSUES IN THE 1930s AND THE 1980s

Pluralists have argued that the political agenda is relatively open. If a group or party apply enough pressure then new issues should have access to the political arena. However, the theories of policy communities and the third dimension of power suggest that issues can be kept off the political agenda. Agriculture seems to provide an example where for forty years new issues did not emerge. Yet in the 1930s and 1980s pressures to change the agricultural agenda have existed. This raises the problem of how, if the agenda is controlled, new issues are debated. Traditionally, agenda change has been explained through the activities of pressure groups but this paper argues that this view is inadequate where a policy community exists. Therefore it suggests that agendas change when structural factors change perceptions and the dominant beliefs of the policy‐makers no longer match reality.

II. Power and Autonomy: Further Comments on the Many Faces of Power

The current emphasis in sociological literature on the study of power in decision making contexts1 and extended to contrived 'non-decision making' by Bachrach and Baratz2 has recently been criticized by Lukes.3 Lukes argues that the 'two faces of power* exhibited in the decision and non-decision making approaches need to be augmented by a third dimension of power which can deal with latent conflict, that is '. . . a contradiction between the interests of those exercising power and the real interests of those they exclude* (Lukes, p. 24). Lukes suggests that the basic conception of power should be 'A affecting B in a manner contrary to B's interests'. Stimulated by Lukes' radical approach and the inevitable question of the accessibility of 'real interests', Abell4 has attempted to reformulate 'the many faces of power', still broadly within a decision-making framework, but using the concept of autonomy in place of 'real interests'. In contrast to the usual causal models of power, Abell employs a teleological paradigm centred on B's motivation and intentions. He extends his earlier model, which was developed in the context of organizations by elaborating three processes: power, influence and manipulation.5 The exercise of power is defined as requiring the use of sanctions and is associated with a change in B's behaviour but with no change in his convictions.6 Influence and manipulation are conceived as processes which are independent of the use of sanctions and are evidenced by a change in both B's behaviour and his convictions. Influence and manipulation are distinguished in terms of B's autonomy which, broadly, is defined as B's 'range of alternatives'. When B's autonomy is maintained or increased then the process is called influence; when B's autonomy is decreased then he has been subject to manipulation. It appears that Abell introduces autonomy not only in an attempt to replace 'real interest' on grounds of its empirical inaccessibility, but also to avoid the authoritarian implications of using (and hence claiming 'real' knowledge) of these interests. He seems to be substituting Lukes' radical approach with what might be called a liberal view of self-direction and choice as the inverse function of the experience of power processes. Perhaps it is this political orientation as much as a technical decision deriving from empirical difficulties that underlies his choice of a teleological rather than a causal paradigm. He suggests that a teleological explanation of power in terms of B's intentions will elucidate the concept of manipulation and usefully contribute to more general questions about autonomous behaviour. Certainly the majority of models of social action (whether at the sociological or psychological level) avoid, or at least neglect, questions of autonomy and choice virtually by definition given their almost inevitably deterministic construction.7 Therefore the value of a model which attempts to use such concepts, particularly in the area of power, should not be underestimated. Nevertheless Abell's approach is open to several criticisms which need to be examined if the model is to be usefully developed.