Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Lukes's three-dimensional view of power (1974) included a substantial normative element. This prompted some, including Hay (1997 and 2002) to argue that Lukes conflated analysis and critique, which resulted in unsatisfactory answers to some difficult questions about the exercise of power. This article examines Hay's critique and Lukes's defence of the normative component in his revised edition of Power: A Radical View(2005). It argues that attempts to formulate a purely empirical account of ‘real interests’ and separate the analysis of the third face of power from critique fail because positions on the structure and agency debate are at least partly informed by normative commitments and it shows how Lukes's 2005 reformulation can provide answers to two questions raised in his 1974 discussion.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bacharach

and Baratz

M.S.

(1962), ‘Two Faces of Power’, American Political Science Review 56, pp. 947–952.

Benton

(1981), ‘Objective Interests and the Sociology of Power’, Sociology 15(2), pp. 161–184.

Caney

(2005), Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carter

(1999), A Measure of Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Clegg

S.R.

(1989), Frameworks of Power, London: Sage.

Dahl

R.A.

(1957), ‘The Concept of Power’, Behavioural Science 2, pp. 201–205.

Dworkin

(1985), ‘What Justice Isn't’, A Matter Of Principle, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.

Hay

(1995), ‘Structure and Agency’ in Marsh

and Stoker

(eds.), Theory and Methods in Political Science, London: Macmillan, pp. 189–206.

Hay

(1997), ‘Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power’, Politics 17(1), pp. 45–52.

10.

Hay

(2002), Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction, Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

11.

Lukes

(1974), Power: A Radical View, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.

12.

Lukes

(1977), Essays in Social Theory, London: Macmillan Press.

13.

Lukes

(2005), Power: A Radical View (2nd edn.), Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Marsh

(2002), ‘Pluralism and the Study of British Politics: It is Always the Happy Hour for Men with Money, Knowledge and Power’ in Hay

(ed.), British Politics Today, Oxford: Polity Press, pp. 14–37.

15.

Nussbaum

(2000), Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Sen

(1984), Resources, Values and Development, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Revisiting the Radical View: Power,Real Interests and the Difficulty of Separating Analysis from Critique

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References