Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Political Science Review
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
most exclusively an American affair. The domi5See, for example, the article by Nelson W. Polsby
nant theme, understandably enough, is the aton the "Study of Community Power," International
tempt to come to terms, in a systematic way, with
Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (New York:
the nature of political reality in the American
Macmillan and The Free Press, 1968) III, 157-163,
which he opens with the statement that "contemporary
research on community power is distinguished by: (1)
a concern with characterizing as a whole the political
1962), 947-952.
order of an entire community (generally an American
2 American Political Science Review, 57 (September,
local community)" [p. 157, emphasis added].
1963), 632-642.
6 Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure.
3 See for example Matthew A. Crerson, The Un(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-DecisionI American Political Science Review, 56 (December,
1953).
7Critics of Hunter are legion-see for example Nelson Polsby, Community Power and Political Theory
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963); and
Arnold Rose, The Power Structure: Political Process
in American Society (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1967).
889
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ship. This can be achieved by observing the decision-making process at work. There are two
difficulties which Dahl sees, at first sight, as reducing the significance of this relationship. And,
of course, if its significance can be questioned, it
would diminish its relevance to any description of
community power.
14 Ibid., p. 233.
"5bid., p. 325.
'6Ibid., p. 317.
"Ibid., pp. 311-325.
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Nondecisions by Covert Control. The first objecThe Response of Bachrach and Baratz. Bachrach
tion that Bachrach and Baratz make, then, is that
and Baratz believe that the significance of the rethe "symbiotic" relationship between citizens and
lationship between leader and citizen may be considerably reduced for either of two reasons. First, leaders, upon which Dahl places so much emphasis, may turn out to be one in which the leaders,
when politicians are able to operate out of the
or some hidden elite which in turn controls them,
public eye, they may not feel themselves bound by
exercise a form of covert control over the whole
any abstract democratic creed, or may so interpret
process. The leaders may not need to take any
it that they are freely able to ignore the interests
account of citizen interests. They may be able to
of any group of constituents, and that these instances may be more significant than politicians'
2" Bachrach and Baratz, Power and Poverty, p. 44.
formal public actions. Alternatively, the most imNote that this definition of nondecisions is more reportant fact may be neither the full flowering of
strictive than what is implied by mobilization of bias
since it denies the possibility of such bias operating
the leader-citizen relationship, nor the covert
against "the values or interests of the decision makers."
machinations of an elite, but the imperatives of
Clearly the mobilization of bias may not itself discrimithe structural setting. Some bias that is inherent
nate how it operates, and against whom-as is of the
in the political process itself, or the political culessence of covert control. The failure to distinguish
ture, may be more significant than the strivings ofbetween these two forms of nondecision making creates the confusion which lies at the heart of their apeither leaders or citizens. Bachrach and Baratz
proach, and is the justification for Merelman describargue, then, that Dahl misses two important fea20 Both the Bachrach and Baratz articles (see notes
1 and 2 above) have been reprinted, together with a
sketchy report of an associated empirical study, in
their Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1970). All further
Bachrach and Baratz references will be to this book.
21 See Crenson, especially pp. 181-182 for a brief,
but very penetrating analysis of the logical difficulties
posed by the concept of indirect influence.
460.
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
p. 114. This question makes sense only if one is concerned with power comparability. A typical reason for
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
of in Dahl's philosophy.
From what they have written it appears that
the mobilization of bias is itself to be considered
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
51Ibid., p. 17.
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
55For sociologists, community has been a key concept, although Colin Bell and Howard Newby, Community Studies (London: Allen and Unwin, 1971), point
to a current disenchantment with the term (pp. 48-53).
Political scientists have not, however, tended to regard
this as a problem requiring much attention. Polsby,
"Study of Community Power," p. 157, notes that community power researchers have adopted a conventionl
perspective by defining community "as a population
living within legally established city limits." This view
was also taken by L. T. Hobhouse, Social Development (London: Allen and Unwin, 1924) who regarded
"all populations living under a common rule as political
communities, though they have only the bare bones of
a common life" (pp. 41-42). Since "community implies
having something in common" (Ronald Frankenberg,
Communities in Britain: Social Life in Town and
Country [London: Penguin, 1966], p. 238), it seems
reasonable to take the common element as the defining
characteristic.
5 Hunter, Community Power Structure, pp. 2-3.
67 Polsby, p. 7.
581bid., p. 113.
69 Robert Dahl, "The Concept of Power," Behavioral
Science, 2 (July, 1957), 201-215, at pp. 202-203.
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
ences, but how these are to be applied in an empirical study. For this purpose Bachrach and
(ii) Sanctions. Bachrach and Baratz do not make
Baratz specifically refer to several indicators, all
it clear if they intend to place their several conof them positively associated with power, and
cepts on some notional "sanctions scale," ranging
either positively or negatively associated with thefrom the case of manipulation (to which sanctions
other concepts. The conditions that must be presare held to be not relevant), through influence and
ent, for example, before they would agree to the
authority where there are "no severe sanctions,"
use of the concept "power" to describe the means
and power, where the "threat of severe sanctions"
of arriving at some conclusion to a situation
applies, to the case of force which requires the
would be as follows.
actual "application of severe sanctions."66 Elsewhere they imply that influence involves no sancand B;
tions at all. For example, "the exercise of power
(2) A threatens B with severe sanctions in the
depends upon potential sanctions, while the exerevent of B's noncompliance;
cise of influence does not."67 In their discussion of
(3) A's demand, and the severity of the sancauthority no reference is made to the subject.68
tions, are rationally perceived by B; and
In view of their emphasis on severity, however,
(4) A gets his way with B's compliance.
it is reasonable to assume that they mean to imply
a hierarchy of sanctions. But this raises the whole
They feel impelled, however, to make explicit
question of establishing an acceptable "severity
the most general feature of power from which
scale" against which the interpretation of the
these more specific conditions follow. Power, they
sanctions by the "patient" in the power relationargue, is a relational concept.63 The consequences
ship can be measured. This is crucial to their deof drawing particular attention to relationality
sign since severity of sanction is the only signifiwill be discussed after the value of each of these
cant means of distinguishing power from authorfour indicators-conflict, sanctions, rationality,
ity and influence.69
and compliance-has been examined briefly.
Dahl discusses this point in these terms. "Exactly what constitutes a 'severe' loss or depriva(i) Conflict. The first question that needs asking is
tion is, to be sure, somewhat arbitrary. No doubt
whether we should be concerned only with the
overt signs of conflict, the public words and ac- what a person regards as severe varies a good deal
with his experiences, culture, bodily conditions,
tions that express an opposition of interests; or
and so on. Nevertheless, probably among all
whether we should also include the psychological
I"Ibid., p. 50.
s5Ibid., p. 50.
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
political relationships.
power relationship ceases to exist, for lack of conflict, the moment the patient complies with a command. It creates the logically difficult position
that compliance both creates a power relationship
and terminates it.
scribe both we confound understanding by obcan mean by this is that they believe a relationship
scuring what is to be explained.
exists only when both parties are conscious of each
other, and also of the terms which are held to con- Any approach to power which ignores the disstitute the relationship. Such symmetry is, how-tinction between cause and effect, then, is bound
to lead to difficulties. But in conventional usage
ever, neither necessary to comply with convenwe frequently describe someone as powerful outtional usage, which would not insist on a direct
side the context of any particular situation. We
link being established, nor reasonable in the demay thus describe an agent as powerful where
mands it makes for empirical analysis. Relationalknown to haxe been successful in the past, and
ity is emphasized, of course, as a rebuttal of the
believed to retain the capacity for success. We
view that power is a commodity that can be poswould say that he "possesses" power, or "is
sessed by one person outside the context of any
relationship. But why go to such lengths to refute powerful." In his case, we would imply, power is
a cause of success, and it is because of this that he
what is, after all, irrefutable, and equally uncan get his way. Yet such an imputation is justified
demonstrable ?
It is, then, impossible to regard relationality as by past actions, or by our ready assumption of
what, in those circumstances, ought to constitute
a characteristic of specific "power events" in an
otherwise nonrelational political field. This latter
is, to steal a phrase from Bentham, "nonsense on
who, although possessing all the objectively appropriate resources, has never appeared to have
stilts." Bachrach and Baratz argue that one must
been intentionally successful.80
"distinguish clearly between power over people
and power over matter."II They overlook the rather
78 Bertrand Russell, Power: A New Social Analysis
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Conclusion. This discussion suggests that the concept "nondecision" is of no practical value in the
One could argue that this is little different from
analysis of community power, because it masks
the approach adopted by Dahl, which also isothe useful distinction that can be made between
lates a reference point and attempts to encapsulate
covert control and mobilization of bias, and offers
it within a wide range of explanatory data.8' Hownothing which is not already available through
ever, the similarity should not mask the divergent
decision-making analysis. The problem it was
consequences for empirical analysis.
directed toward can be resolved only by adopting
Dahl's approach to power is that "A has power
over B to the extent that he can get B to do some- a more modest approach to the concept "power"
thing that B would not otherwise do."82 If this is which does not require the observer to focus on
individual initiatives within the context of an obadopted as a guide to research, one must first
servable relationship. Such an unnecessary restricidentify two parties in interaction, and then estabtion devalues the significance of the context to the
lish a change of position by either participant
which can be attributed to the efforts of the other. description of power. It is only by capturing someThe inevitable result is that one must focus on the thing of this that the observer can hope to underdynamics of a concretely verifiable relationship. stand the forces shaping the relationships that
constitute the community. There is no shortcut to
It is not possible for such an approach to deal
be gained by elaborating a set of stipulative definiwith the problem of inaction, which is just as reletions, as Bachrach and Baratz have attempted.
vant to the discussion of power.
The result is merely to inhibit the observer's
The definition adopted here shifts the focus instead to the intention to produce an effect, as well sensitivity to his surroundings. Since their work
as the effect itself. It does not require that move- can be taken primarily as an appeal to this, it is
ment be demonstrated in the position of any other unfortunate that the "Two Faces" they have put
party. This means that empirical analysis is freed on their concern should both look inward onto a
definitional maze.
from a preoccupation with the intricacies of an
be discussed.
This content downloaded from 138.116.179.26 on Sun, 09 Oct 2016 13:00:33 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms