Steven Lukes has recently reissued his famous book on power, Power: A Radical View. He now admits that the concept of power that he used in his original (1974) book is flawed, but he still wants to defend the position that he advanced there. I argue that he is right to regard his concept of power as flawed, but that admitting this undermines his argument. I conclude that he can rescue his argument by realising that he is not, in fact, using a concept of power at all.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ConnollyW. E. (1983) The Terms of Political Discourse. Oxford: Martin Robertson (first edition 1974).
2.
GalemoreG. L. (1997) ‘Presidential Vetoes, 1789–1996: A Summary Overview’, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 1997. Available from: http://www.house.gov/rules/97-163.htm (accessed 28 June 2005).
3.
KennyA. (1975) Will, Freedom and Power. Oxford: Blackwell.
4.
LukesS. (2005) Power: A Radical View, second edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
MorrissP. (2002) Power: A Philosophical Analysis. Manchester: Manchester University Press (first edition 1987).
6.
PettitP. (1997) Republicanism: A Theory of Government and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
7.
SennettR. (2003) Respect: The Formation of Character in a World of Inequality. London: Allen Lane.
8.
SkinnerQ. (1998) Liberty before Liberalism.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
SollenbergerM. A. (2004) ‘Congressional Overrides of Presidential Vetoes’, Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, 2004. Available from: http://www.house.gov/rules/98–157.pdf (accessed 28 June 2005)
10.
de SpinozaB. (1958 [1670]) Tractatus Theologico-Politicus in The Political Works, ed. and trans. WernhamA.G.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
