Two Faces of Power

Peter Bachrach; Morton S. Baratz

The American Political Science Review, Vol. 56, No. 4. (Dec., 1962), pp. 947-952.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554%28196212%2956%3A4%3C947%3ATFOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J

The American Political Science Review is currently published by American Political Science Association.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/apsa.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Mon Aug 6 13:33:57 2007
 TWO FACES OF POWER'
PETERB.~CHRACH S. BARATZ
AKD MORTOX
Bryn Afazor College

1.131, V I I I I I , of ~ ~ polvtr
~ rcmains elusive despite which p r e d e t ~ r m i n e their conclusions. Our
tlie rc .tynt ant! prolific, outpourings of case argument is cast within t h e frame of our central
ptll(lic,s o i l c o l ~ i r n u i ~ i tpower. y I t s elusireness is thesis: t h a t there a r e t ~ faces~ o of power, nei-
dra1n:li ic,:il!y clc~rnonstratedb y t h e regularity of t h e r of which t h e sociologists see a n d only one
tii<a:l., i,:llcmt :is t o t h e locus of community of which the political scientists see.
"1. I~~~t\.r-ec~rl t h e soc.iologists a n d t h e political
I
s i . ~ e i l t i k f ~Soi,ir~logically
. oriented researchers
11:1vi>c . o ~ ~ > i > t fount1 ~ ~ ~ t l tyh a t power is highly Against the elitist approach to power several
ci81ltr:~li~ c . 1 1 . I\-! ~ i l cscholars trained in political criticisms m a y be, a n d h a v e been l e ~ e l l e t l One
.~
sc,ic~~c,e, 11:i\-ej11.t as regularly concluded t h a t i n has t o do with its basic premise t h a t in e r e r y
'.tllc,ii.' ~,ol~lrr!~inities power is widely d i f f u ~ e d . ~h u m a n institution there is a n ordered system of
I ' I . ~ - I I I I I : ! ~f11is ~ ~ s the latter group power, a "power structure" whicli is a n integral
I ~ J~- ,x p l a i why
s t ~ . l ~ 1, 1-- ( , i f ' . l ~ l u r ~ l i s t ,its " counterpart "eli- p a r t a n d t h e mirror image of t h e organization's
tirt." stratification. T h i s postulate the pluralists
'I'il,alc, -,,cnih rlo room for d o u b t t h a t t h e en~phatically-and, t o our mind, correctly-
shs1.[11>'ii\ o1.ge31ltfindings of t h e two groups are reject, o n t h e ground t h a t
the l i ~ ~ a ~ ~ il o~ tolf~ s11ei.r ~ t , coincidence, b u t of nothing categorical can be assurlled about
f111l(l31~(,iit:ll elifY~~~~cnces in both their
under- in any ,ommunity. , , If anything, there seems
Iyin; : I - - ~ i ~ ~ l p t i and o n s research n~ethodology. to be
an unspoken rlotion among pluralist re-
l'!lc :) 1iitic.al scit:ntists have contended t h a t searchers that at bottom nobody dominates in a

tl:osi~c l i iI'~~i.c,nc.c~s ill findings can he explained b y

to,n, so that their first question is not likely to be,

tllc iatrlt 1- :il)l~r.oac:liantl presuppositions of the runs this commullity?,~~ but rather, "Does

s o c i o l o f i i ~ tI\-e ~ . contend in this paper t h a t the ,,,

at this community?,, The first

plill.ali-t- t I l ~ 1 1 1 ~ c l r ehave
s not grasped t h e query is somewhatlike, "Have you stopped beat-

~\-lloic~ t ! tit I1 of t h e m a t t e r ; t h a t ~vllile their ing y o , r in that virtually any

critiCi>:rl-111t!~c'clitists are sound, they, like the short of total unwillillgness to anslyer will

elit,ihtq ~ ~ l i i i z311 , , a l ~ p r o a c hand assumptions the researchers with a elite,j

tile
lines presupposed by the stratification theory.'
'1'111- I):I;)wis : i l l outgrowth of n seminar in
Proi 11.111- of I'uwr:r in C:ontcmporary Society, Equally objectionable t o t h e pluralists-and
cor~c!uct~ , I joiritIy Ily the authors for graduate t o us-is t h e sociologists' hypothesis t h a t t h e
st,;di:rit: :1:,11,li~dergr:~tluatc majors in political power structure tends t o be stable over time.
scie~~rc:I , ( ! ~ ~ r o ~ ~ o ~ n i c a . Pluralists hold t h a t power may be tied to
V i : i , l > i :8 : i i . ~ , ,Eot cs:rmplc, the sociologicnl studies issues, and issues can be or persistent, pro-
of 1, I,)! I ! I r 1 1 1 i t c,r, Co~lzmnnit!~Power Sfri~cture voking coalitions among interested and
(C'ii: l v ' i 11111, 1053); R o l a ~ ~ dPellegrirli and citizens, ranging in their duration f r o m momen-
C'I,:rl.lv~11. Co:atcs, "Ahsentcc-Orned Corpora- tary to semi-permanent. , . . T~ presume that the
tic,rr- : i , , ' !t ' o ~ i l : ~ l r ~ ~Pover i i t y Structure," flirter- set of coalitions which exists in the community a t
ic.rin .lo I , . , L / I / 0/' ,Sociology, Vol. 61 (March 1'3561, any given tirne is a tinlelessly stable aspect of
1'11. 41:: I!); n11l1Itohrrt 0. Schulze, "Economic social structure is to introduce systematic inncCu-
I ) i ~ n i i ~ l .sl i:in11 ~ t C'ommunity Power Structure," racies into one,s description of social reality.j
A.i r i c , ; !, jSocioiogicnl 12cuie11,,Vol. 23 (February
l!).;8\, 1 i i 1 . :',-!I; x i t h political science studies of A third criticism of t h e elitist model is t h a t i t
\\':~llni,,, .;: Sayre, and Herbert I<aufmar~,Govern- wrongly equates reputed with actual power:
i r i r i .\-<, . 1-ork ( ' i t ! / i X e ~ vYork, 1960) ; Robert A. the pluralist
If man,s major life \vork is
I ) : t h i , I\ I8r, Go1 c'rnsl ( S e w IIaver~, 1961); and presumes he spend his time at the baIlk, anrl
S o r t o ~ r i:. Loti:: : L I IGeorge ~ Relknap, "A Re- not in manipulating comlllunity Tllis
F I S : . ~ ( , I I I'!.ogr:ii~lO I L Leadership antl Decision- presumption holds until the activities
> I . t l , i r ~ ; ~i l l i\I(~tro1)01ita11Areas" ( S e w York, and participations indicate other,v.ise, . . . If we
C ; ( I V I ~ T I I\fT:~ir~ I I ~ ~ I~nstitute,
I I ~ ~ ~ 1056). See also
S (1bi111\ \ - . Po!ht,y, " 1 x 0 ~to Study Community See especially X. IV. Polsby, op. cit., p. 475f.
' Ibid., pp. 476.
-
Pr,ii-(,r: 1'111, l'l~lralist Alternative," Journal of
I ' c ~ i i i i , Yitl. 2 2 i.\llgust, 1960), pp. 474-84. 6 Ibid., pp. 478-79.

947
9 L8 THE AMERICAS POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
pre..lir:ii, tl~nttlie banker is "really" engaged in
r~innirl:: t l i ~ : c,cImmunity, tlirre is practically no
\\:I> 111' i!i-c,o~~iirrningthis notion, even if it is
tot: I I J I ' ! . I . O I I C0~1 I1 Itile
P . other hand, it is easy to
bj1o: 1 1 1 , I~:i~~lii.l. \ ~ h orcally does run community
atT:iirs v5 h1.11n.c: prc,sume he does not, because his
activitrcas mill ~ n a k ethis fact apparent.6
l'lii: is 1101 an exhaustive bill of particulars;
tlitsrc, . ~ i .Aans
; ~ other t h a n these in the sociologi-
c ~ r1n !e!cl allel methodologyi-including some
whick the pluralists themselves have not
notir.1 (1. Iiut to go into this would not materi-
ally sa : %':, our current purposes. Suffice i t sim-
111:- to t)i~scrvet h a t whatever the merits of their
own :i;)proac'!l t o power, the pluralists have
eff~,cti\lllyexposed the main weaknesses of the
elitist rriodel.
11s tile foregoing quotations make clear, t h e
pluraii'ts col11:cntrate their attention, not upon
the si,uri30sof power, b u t its exercise. Power t o
thoni irit.nns "participation in decision-mak-
i1lg"V:)!1!1rnrl bc analyzed only after "careful
e x n n l l ~ ~ : ~ t iofc ~anseries of concrete decisions."$
As a i".<\~lt, tlie pluralist researcher is uninter-
rstctl i l l tlic reputedly powerful. His concerns
in~t;~:ic! are to (a) select for study a number of
"li~;:' ns opl~osed to "routine" political de-
(,it;i~lri?,( 1 ) ) illcntify thc people who took a n
act i \.v 1):irt in the decision-making process, (c)
clht:ii'~:I full account of their actual behavior
~ v l , i i itt111
~ policy conflict was being resolved,
rind ( I I tlcteri~~ine and
analyze t h e specific out- social and political values and institutional
c.orr:e of the iwnflict.
practices t h a t limit t h e scope of the political
1'11(. : ~ t i ~ a r i t a gof
e s this
approach, relative to process to public consideration of only those
t h ~ :c itist alternative, need no further exposi-
tion. ' l l ~ <saint,
, may not be said, however, about
its 11, TI c t s two of which seem to us to be of
f u ~ ~ t I : ! : ~ : cimportance.
~r~tal One is t h a t the model
tai;c+ iio nccolrnt of t h e fact t h a t power may be,
arid c,ftrn is, (xsrrcised b y confining the scope of
11ecis:1111-making to relatively "safe" issues. T h e
othcr is that the model provides no objective
r>ritc:ri:lfor distinguishing between "important"
:inti "l~nimpurtant" issues arising in t h e politi-
ral ni.ctnn.
I~,iii. pp. 480-81
7 $1 cbpec i illy Robert A. Dahl, "A Critique of
I in the one case, -4 openly participates; in the otlier,
t h c 1: ~l~lig-I.I~te Model," t h i ~REVIEW,Vo1. 52
1J!ir11 I1t58), ~ p 463-60,
. and Lanrence J. R.
III,~.,III,' 'In the Footsteps of Community
P I II I ~
, " thii I ~ E V I E W5-01
, 55 (December 1961),
PI'. S 17-3 1.
a ?'),is definition originated with Harold D.
Las. \ ( 11 :lnd Abraham Kaplan, P o w e r and Society
(Nen II:iven, 1950), p. 75.
0 Itotwrt 2. Dnhl, "A Clitique of the Ruling-
Elite 3Iode1," loc. c ~ t . p, 466.
There is no gainsaying t h a t all analysis
groundcd entirely upon n h a t is specific and
visible to the outside observer is more "scien-
tific" than one based upon pure speculation. T o
p u t i t another way,
If we can get our socsial life stated in terms of
activity, and of nothing else, \ve l u v e not indeed
succeeded in meirsurirlg it, but we have a t least
reached a foundation upon %vhicha coherent sys-
tem of measurements can be built up. . . . We
shall cease to be blocked by the intervention of
unmeasurable elements, ~5hichclaim to be t!lem-
selves the real causes of all that is happening, and
which by their spook-like arbitrariness make im-
possible any progress t o ~ ~ a rdependable
d know-
1edge.lo
T h e question is, however, how can one be cer-
tain in a n y given situation t h a t the "unmeasur-
able elements1' are inconsequential, are not of
decisive importance? Cast in slightly different
terms, can a sound concept of power be predi-
cated on t h e assumption t h a t power is totally
embodied and fully reflected in "concrete de-
cisions" or in activity bearing directly upon
their making?
Tire think not. Of course power is exercised
when 4 , participates in the making of decisions
t h a t affect B. R u t power is also exercised when
A devotes his energies t o creating or reinforcing
issues which are comparatively innocuous to A.
T o the extent t h a t A succeeds in doing this, B is
prevented, for all practical purposes, from
bringing to t h e fore a n y issues t h a t might in
their resolution be seriously detrimental to A's
set of prefcrences.ll
l o rZrthur Bentley, T h e Process of Governinent
(Chicago, 1908), p. 202, quoted in Polsby, o p . cit.,
p. 48111.
l1 As is perhaps self-evident, there are similar-
ities in both faces of power. I n each, -4 participates
in decisions and thereby adversely affects B. But
there is an important difference between the two:
he participates only in the sense that he works to
sustain those values and rules of procedure that
help him keep certain issues out of the public do-
main. True enough, participation of the second
kind may a t times be overt; that is the case, for
instance, in cloture fights in the Congress. But the
point is that it need not be. I n fact, when the
maneuver is most successfully executed, it neither
involves nor can be identified 7%-ithdecisions
arrived a t on specific issues.
 TWO FACES O F POWER
Sit~r:~tions of this kind are common. Con-
sidvr, i c ~ ~rs:~rnple,
. the case-surely not un-
f:rr!:iii.!l to tliis audience-of the discontented
f : ~ c ~ ~ ! t1:rcnrl)er
\. in an academic institution
heatlctl by n tradition-bound executive. Ag-
gric'~.(,liat)or~ta long-standing policy around
n hicil :r rtrorig vested interest has developed,
tllc. ~:~.oic~ssor rcsolves in t h e privacy of his office
to !s11:r,.hnn nttack upon the policy a t the next
fac~~lt!.nleeting. Rut, when the moment of
tl,utl~IF nt hanil, he sits frozen in silence. Why?
An?onq the nr:tny possible reasons, one or more
of theics c~c~ultl have been of crucial importance:
(a) the, professor was fearful t h a t his intended
action ~vouldlie interpreted as a n expression of
his tli+loyalty to t h e institution; or (b) he de-
c i d 1 ~t1l ~ a tgivcn
, the beliefs and attitudes of his
collent~les on the faculty, he would almost
cr.rt:lilrl~. caonstitute on this issue a minority of
orlr ; oi. i I , ) hc, concluded that, given t h e nature
of this ]:LIT-1n:lliingprocess in the institution, his
propo.~~il~ , e n ~ c d i ewould s be pigeonholed per-
n : a l l c ~ ~ ? lBy .u t whatever the case, the central
pi~illt: I , I,(: matle is the same: to the extent t h a t
s I)crGoli or group-consciously or uncon-
s~.ioll+l,v -cre:rtcs or reinforces barriers t o the
pill~lic:;irillg of policy conflicts, t h a t person or
group Itas power. Or, as Professor Schatt-
schnc.iil~,rllas so admirably p u t i t :
.I11 fol - of politics1 organization have a bias in
f:ivor of tile r\;iloit:ttion of some kinds of conflict
a l ~ dtlli -upprc .<ion of others because organization
is t h e 7 ~ ~ , j h ; l i i i i l iofo n bias. Some issues are organ-
iz,stl i ! i . o 1,c~litic.:: \vliile others are organized out.12
I s s:~c,lihi:~snot relevant to t h e s t u d y of
p o ~ c ..'r .Sl~i~ulil not the student be continuously
alert 1 0 its 1)ossil)le existence in the h u m a n
institutir~lltl!:rt he studies, and be ever pre-
1)ar1~1 t o c~ra111inet h e forces which brought it
into !li,it!g :irlrl sustain it? Can he safely ignore
t h e pw>il)ilit>-,for instance, t h a t a n individual
or gr01111in a community participates more
vigoro~i-!J. ill supporting t h e nondecision-
7r~(jX.i?~!1
j~rocesst h a n in participating in actual kind of false consensus vill exist-not the phony
clc~cisio~,.: ~ v i t l l i the
~ i process? Stated differently,
can t l l ~rc,senrr-her overlook t h e chance t h a t
some ~ ~ c ' r sor o r association
~ could limit decision-
mnl,iii,.: :o re1:ztively non-controversial matters,
I)!- irifii~:,nc.ing~ o m m u n i t yvalues and political
proi~ct1~11~e.; alltl rituals, notwithstanding t h a t
there :ir.i3 in thc: community serious b u t latent
prbvier. c'onflicts:"3 T o do so is, in our judgment,
'2 1 1 :. Scll ~ t t ~ c h n e i d e rThe
, Semi-Sovereign
I'to~~lcYe\\- Tork, l960), p. 71.
13 1 ) I I p trtrr111i-lconcedes this point when he
.
ol)sc r \ I ' 1 C I ~ t ~ qofl the
~ r Ruling-Elite Model,"
1111, I,')) t h a t "one could argue that even in a
9.29
t o overlook t h e less apparent, b u t nonetheless
extremely important, face of power.
I n his critique of t h e "ruling-elite model,"
Professor Dahl argues t h a t "the hypothesis of
the existence of a ruling elite can bc strictly
tested only i f . . . [ t ] here is a fair sample of
cases involving key political decisions in ~ i ~ h i c h
t h e preferences of the hypothetical ruling elite
r u n counter to those of a n y other likely group
t h a t might be suggested."l' With this assertion
we have two complaints. One we have already
discussed, viz., in erroneously assuming t h a t
power is solely reflected in concrete decisions,
Dahl thereby excludes t h e possibility t h a t in
the community i n question there is a group
capable of preventing contests from arising on
issues of importance t o it. Beyond t h a t , how-
ever, b y ignoring the less apparent face of
power Dahl and those who accept his pluralist
approach are unable adequately to differentiate
between a "key" and a "routine" political
decision.
Nelson Polsby, for example, proposes t h a t
"by pre-selecting as issues for study those
which are generally agreed to be significant,
pluralist researchers can test stratification
theory."15 H e is silent, however, on how t h e
researcher is to determine what issues are "gen-
erally agreed to be significant," and on how the
researcher is to appraise the reliability of the
agreement. I n fact, Polsby is guilty here of t h e
same fault he himself has found with elitist
methodology: b y presupposing t h a t in a n y
community there are significant issues i n t h e
political arena, he takes for granted the very
question which is in doubt. H e accepts as issues
what are reputed to be issues. As a result, his
findings are fore-ordained. For eyen if there is
no "truly" significant issue in the community
society like ours a ruling elite might be so influ-
ential over ideas, attitudes, and opinions that a
consensus of a terroristic totalitarian dictatorship
but the manipulated and superficially self-imposed
adherence to the norms and goals of the elite by
broad sections of a community. . . . This objec-
tion points to the need to be circumspect in inter-
preting the evidence." But that he largely misses
our point is clear from the succeeding sentence:
"Yet here, too, it seems to me that the hypothesis
cannot be satisfactorily confirmed without some-
thing equivalent to the test I have proposed,"
and that is "by an esamination of a series of con-
crete cases where key decisons are made. . . . "
l4 Op. cit., p. 466.
l 5 O p . cit., p. 478.
5) 0
?-) THE A M E R I C A T POLITICAL S C I E S C E R E V I E I T

uridcr :.tutly, thcre is every likelihood t h a t meaning t o thosc iasucs nhicli do eritcr the
Il111>1)!I or a n y like-minded researcher) will find political arena.
oric or sc~niearid, after careful study, reach the
a p ~ ) r o l l ~ i npluralistic
t(s conclusion^.^^ IS'
I)al!I's tlefi~iitionof "key political issues" in There is no better fulcrum for our critique of
liis ( x ~ oil s : ti111 the pluralist model t h a n Dahl's recent study of
~ ~ruling-elite model is open to t h e
P : I I I ' ~ ~vi.itic,isnl. po~verin h'ew Haven.lg
He states t h a t i t is "a necessary
i~lt,l:oucl~ A t the outset it may be observed t h a t Dahl
possibly not a sufficient condition t h a t
tlie [kc.! 1 issuc should involve actual disagree- does not a t t e m p t in this work to define his
nierit i i i pri~fc:rences among two or more concept, "key political decision." I n asking
g~.o!i~):."~: whether the "Sotables" of New IHaven are
111 our vie\\-, this is a n inadequate
18linr:icti,rization of a "key political issue," "influential overtly or covertly in the making
s i n i p l ~I)cv~ausc.groups can have disagreemcnts of governmcnt dccisions," he simply states t h a t
irl p r i . I ' - r < ~ ~on ~ c eunimportant
~ he will examine "three different 'issue-areas' in
as ~vtsll as on
irn~)ort:~ritihsucs. Elite preferences which nhich important public dccisions arc made:
borrlr.1 0 1 1 t l ~ eindiffcrcnt art7 certainly not nominations b y the two political parties, urban
sigriili~.:~nt redel-elopmcnt, and public cdticarion." These
in tlcitermining whether a monolithic
or ~ ~ o l \ . l ~ tlistribution
tl~ic choices are justified on the grounds that "norni-
of pon-tsr prcrails in a
givt.11 c,or!irntlnity. 1:sing Dahl's definition of nations detcrmine which persons will hold
..kc.?- liolitir:il issues," the researcher would public office. The K e ~ vHaven rcdevelop~ncnt
II:L\ l i t tic. rlifficwlty in finding such in practi-
(1 program measured b y its cost-piesent and
1,:111!-:II!!. c.olllnit~llity;and it would not he sur- potential-is thc largcst in the country, Public
111.i-i!1!;rl!(>rli f hcl ultimattsly conc*luclcd t h a t education, aside from its intrinsic importance.
I J O \ ~ I . I H I tlic 17ommunity was widely diffused. is the costliest itcm in tllc city's budget."
'1'111 tlistirlt~tion between important and Thcreforc, Dahl concludes. "It is reasonable to
l ~ n i n , ; ~ l ' r t :isques, expect . . . t h a t thc relativr influrritc over
~ n t we believe, cannot be made
iritc~lli:~~r~tly public officials wielded b y the . . . Kotablcs
in tlir absence of an analysis of the
~'rnol)i!~z:itioli nould he rcrcaled b y an examination of their
of bias" in the community; of the
iloliiir :lilt v : ~ l l ~ c sa nd the political myths, participation in these threc arcas of a ~ t i v i t y . " ? ~
rit~inl-.:r~!clilistitutions which tend to favor the The difficulty with this latter statement is
l.esti~Ii !it i ~ c , s tof t h a t it is evident from Dahl's o n n account that
i one or morc groups, relative
to otI!t,ri. -\l.mcd with this knowledge, one thc Koiables are in fact unintcreqtcd in two of
r,,11111I.OII(.III(II.t h a t a n y challenge to the pre- the three "key" decisions he has chosen. In
tiorni~:,titr a l i ~ c sor to thc cstablishcd "rules of regard to thc public school issue, for exarnplc,
Dahl points out t h a t m a n y of the Sotables livc
tllc. i . : r : ~ i c . " ~\.nultlconstitute a n "importantJ'
i.sl~c; : i l l r'lsc., unimportant. T o be sure, judg- in the suburbs and t h a t thosc n h o do live in
nicnt:: , i f t l ~ i skind cannot hc cntirely objective. New Haven choosc in the main to send thcir
I l u t t : , :I: oitl making them in a study of powcr children to private schools. ".is a conse-
i: I,ot11 ( 1 1 nc3~lccta highly significant aspcct of quence," he writes, " t l i ~ i rinterest in the public
I J O I V ~ . ~nrld thereby to undcrmine thc only schools is ordinarily rather slight."" Xonlina-
soi11111 li:~qis for discriminating between "key" tions b y thc two political parties as a n impor-
:in11 "r., s i ~ t i ~ i r ,decisions.
" t a n t "issue-area," is some~vliatanalogous to the
I n effcct, we contend,
t llc. [~~i~l.:llist'; public schools, in t h a t the apparent lack of
have
made cach of thesc mis-
interest among the Notables in this issue is
t:il,c,-: t l ~ : i~~ tto
say, they have donc just t h a t
~ I I I , liit.li Iini~fn~a and partially accounted for b y their suburban resi-
n Jones so sevcrcly taxed
171~1~-tl JI!~ntc,r:they have begun "their strur- dence-becausc of which t h r y arc disqualified
t i ~ r e:,t tlir mezzanine without sho~vingus a from holding public office in S e w E-Iavcn. In-
1 0 1 1 1 ) ~ i ' o u ~ i ~ l a t i o n , ' ' ~ ~they
111. deed, Dahl himself concedes t h a t ~ v i t hrespect
i . e . ,have begun by
s t l ~ tI l I~I the, ~ to both these issues the Notables are largely
issues rather than the values and
ltinsc+ t h a t arc, built into the political system indifferent: "Business leaders might ignore the
:in11 t l ~ : r t ,for the student of porvcr, give real public schools or the political parties without
a n y sharp awareness t h a t thcir indifference
\ " ~ I Ppoirlt~ out, the expectations of the ~vouldh u r t their pocketbooks . . ." He goes on,
p l ~ ~ r t r l ! - t rcsc~:xrchers "have seldom been dis- however, to say t h a t
:~ppoi~!t I>II." i l h i d . , p. 477).

;' O p . c'it., 11.

467.
19 Robert A. I)nlil, TT'ho Goz~erns?( N p m Haven,

Iic rllert ICaufman and Victor Jones, "The 1961).

\Iystt I.? of Power," P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Re- 2 0 I b i d . , p. 61.

t'ieic, \'ol. 14 (Slimmer 1954), p. 207. 21 I b i d . , p. 70.

t11e pr.11.1)r~c.t of profound changes [as a res111tof the understood clearly t h a t in making these points
~irt,:~r~-rc~d~~vrlo~)rnent program] in ot\-nership, we are not attempting to refute Dahl's conten-
pliyh~(.:~l l:~yoiit, and usage of property in the tion t h a t the Notables lack pon-t.r in S e w
tlowiit~\\~ i
:ire.:\ a n d the effects of these cl1:~ngeson Haven. \\-hat we are saying, ho\\-eyer, is t,liat
t,l~ec . ~ ) i ~ ~ r n i ' r c .and
i : i l indnstri:~lprosperity of New this conclusion is not adequatelj- suypo?tcd b y
E1irvt.11n.c.1.e :ill relntetl in an obviou~\~:1yt,o the his analysis of the "issue-areas" of public edu-
daily c.c~~lc,rrnu of businessme11.2~ cation a n d party nominations.
The same may not be said of redevelopment.
Thlis, i f one believes-as Professor Dahl did This issue is by a n y reasonable standard
n-hc:n 1 1 1 ' ~vrott!his critique of the ruling-elite portant for purposes of (letermining \vhether
n?oclc,l t h a t a n issue, to be considered as inl- FewHayen is ruled b y "the hidden hand of arl
port>ll!i, "sll0Llld involve actual disagreement econonlic elite."'6 For t h e Economic Sotables
irl pri,f~'ri311cc5s among tn-0 or more $ r o ~ ~ p s , "have ~ ~ takell a n actire interest in the p ? o g r a ~ ~ l
then c,li'arly !I(. has now for all practical pur- and, beyond that, t h e socio-economic il~lll~ica-
~ O S P Swritten off public education and party tions of it are not necessarily in harnlonY \vith
norrli~intioris ns key "issue-areas." B u t this the basic interests and lral,les of businesses and
point asi(le, it appears somewhat dubious a t businessmen.
best t11:~t"tllc' relative influence over public I n a n effort to assure t h a t the r~del-rlopnlent
of6,:ials n ie1dr.d by the Social Fotables" can be prograIn lvould be to IT-]lat he
rc3~.c~:i1t~~1 all examination of their ~lonpartici- dubbed "the biggest muscles" in Selv I$avcll,
pstior~in :irons in which they were not inter- AIayor Lee created the Citizens Aiction Corn-
estrd. mission (CAC) and appointed to it primarily
I.'url11c:lnore, we would not rule out tile pas- of the economic elite. I t \vas
sibilit! tllnt c\.rn on those issues to which they given the function of ol-erseeing t h e ~vorl;of the
apIlcxar iniliffcrent, the Notables may have a mayor and otller officials inrolve(l in redevelop-
signifii,:int degree of indirect influence. We ment, anti, as well, t h e rrsponsibility for organ-
~i.olil(l!-iiggest, for example, t h a t althougll they izing and encouraging citizens' participation in
scxnd their c,liildren to private schools, t h e the program through a n extensil-e con1mittee
S o t : r \ , l ~ ~(lo s rc,cognize t h a t public school ex- system.
perrtlitriri~shnvc a direct bearing upon their o m I n order t o weigll the relative influence of the
t a x 1ial)ilities. This being so, and given their mayor, other key ant1 the menlbers of
strolig t.i3prcsc>ntationon the Xew H a r e n Board the CAkC,Dahl reconstructs "all the irilportant
of l?irlnr~ci~,~* the expectation must be t h a t i t is decisions on redevelopment and r e n e I ~ a lbe-
in tlriti? direct intibrestto play a n active role in t,,,, 1950-58 . . . [to] determine lVhich indi-
fisc:il i~'licy-niaking, in the establishment of vi(luals most often initiated the proposals t h a t
tlrc ccl~tl~atiorl:il budget in particular. B u t as to Ivere finally adopted or most often successfully
t l i i ~ ,1 ):it11is silent: he inquires not a t all into rt~toed the proposals of the ot]lers."27 The
r.it11er tlic. docisions made by the Board of results of this test indicate t h a t t h e mayor and
Fin3nt.c. wit11 respect to education nor into his development administrator Tvpre h- far the
t,l~cil.itripnrt upon the public s c h o o l ~ . ~ Li~t ebet most influential, and t h a t t h e "musclesn on t h e
Commission, excepting in a f e ~ v trivial in-
22 I f ) ; ( / , 1). 71. stances, "never directly initiated, opposed,
z3 ( I / , . c i t . , 1). 467. vetoed, or altered a n y proposal brought before
2. 1 [ 7 i i i ~G o ~ ' c r ~ r s !p.
, 82. Dahl points out that them. . . ."28
"th,. r r ~ : ~ i1)olic.yn tlirust of the Economic Yotables This finding is, in our view, unreliable, not so
is to ol,I,o\r t : ~ xinrrease~;this leads them to op- much brcause Dahl was compellrd t o make a
post, i - s ~ ~ - r ~ ~ lfor i t ~anything
~ r . c ~ s more than minimal ---
t r : ~ ( l i t i l ~ c~i~t y; l services.
l I n this effort their two in past years, hut not actual decisions of the
mo-t vil'r-ctior weapons ordinarily are the mayor Board of Finance or their effects on the public
d I(onrc1 of Finance. The policies of the schoolsystem.
i ~ r ~1111.
Sota\,l(,- :ire xnomt easily achieved under a strong 26 Ibid., p. 12.2.

mayor i f his p~bliciescoincide with theirs or under 2 7 Ibid. ('A rough test of a person's overt or

rt ne:il, rn:iyor if they have the support of the covert influence," Dahl states in the first section
Ro:~rclof l:in:~r~c.e.. . . New Haven mayors have of the hook, "is the frequency with which he
c.ontir~il~,,l to fin11it expedient to create confidence successfully initiates an important policy over
in thcsir !iri:rnc.i:~lpolicies among businessmen by the opposition of others, or vetoes policies ini-
rtppointi~lgthem to the Board." (pp. 81-2) tiated by others, or initiates a policy where no
26 U:ihi does ciiscllss in general terms (pp. 79-84) opposition appears." (Ibid., P. 66)
rhangrs in the level of tax rates and assessments Ibid., p. 131.
952 THE AMERICAS POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW
subjec ~ I fX ~r.l(v~tion of what constitutcd impor-
tcrnt t l c I 171ilns uithin what lie felt t o be a n im-
port r l i ! is-ur-area," as because t h e finding mas
k):isc t l Ili)on a7i cxccssively narrow test of influ-
enctx. ' 1 ' ~ ) rne:lwre relative influence solely in
pr,,al. -
t e r n ~ s11; the nl~ilityto initiate and veto pro-
t ( I igr~orethe possible exercise of influ-
encc 01 11 ~ n e in r limiting t h e scope of initiation.
I I o n , t i l i t 1s to say, can a judgment be made as
to tilt, ! I l a t ~ v cinfluenre of Mayor Lee and t h e
(' I ( ' n lthout knowing (through prior s t u d y of
thtx pol~tirnlant1 social views of all concerned)
thc p ~ o i ~ o ct ~h al ts Lee did not make because h e
ar?tii3lp~ t c dt h a t they would provoke strenuous
opptrs~ton antl, perhaps, sanctions on t h e part
of tlif ( '
In .I I I , iint r, he does not recognize both faces
of ~ O J J rI 1)alil is in no position to evaluate t h e
rc~latil ~nfluc~nte or power of the initiator a n d
dcc~iiio~~-rnaker. on the one hand, and of those
prleon. or1 tht. other, who may have been in-
dl1 ec tl\ ~ n s t r u m e n t a il n preventing potentiallv
dnn::c r011.; issucs from being raised.30 As a re-
2 0 1):1i1l iq, of course, aware of the "law of antic-
ip::tc,cl r . ~ ~ : ~ c . l i oI nn ~the. " case of the mayor's rela-
tiu~l.iililb1, it11 t!~r.C.kC, Dahl notes that Lee was
"p;lrlii,i!!:tr.Iysl;il!f~!l in estimating what the CAC
C O I I ~ I ! ! I , , c,sl)ectcd to support or reject." (p. 137).
Ho\\-I:\-~ r . 1)nhl was not interested in analyzing or
a ~ , l ~ r : ~ i ~t oi r wliat
, : : extent the C,4C limited Lee's
freixdolr~of actic~n.Because of his restricted con-
crl't of ~ ~ o \ w1):ihl ~ r , (lid not consider that the CAC
might i l l this rr8spect have exercised power. T h a t
thtb ('.\(: ilitl not initiate or veto actual proposals
by t l ~ crti:iyor was to Ilahl evidence enough that
tht, (:.\(-: v:?s virtually powerless; i t might as
pln1!?il1lv !I(, evidence that the CAC was (in itself
or in nil:tt i t rcpresented) so p o ~ e r f u lthat Lee
vcrit1:rc~inothir~git would find worth quarreling
witll.
3 " '1'1!(. f:irt that the initiator of decisions also
refrains I)c~c~a~:sr: he anticipates adverse reac-
tio~~ - fs. ~ > : niniiinting other proposals does not
obxiolli'\ lissen the power of the agent n h o
1irn:tc ti 1 , iqiti ttive powers. Dahl missed this
point. "1 I I \ , ' ' hc, n rites, "all the more improbable,
then, ti) t ,I seirrt cabal of h'otables dominates
the pul1'11 llfe of New Haven through means so
claridcct I i that not one of the fifty prominent
citi/ens 1 . trrvicr\ed in the course of this study-
citi;.erli \rho I ~ r d participated extensively in
variol~stii~c~i~ions-hinteda t the existence of such
a c : j b , ~ l . . " (p. 185).
In c,onl.(,ivingof elite domination exclusively in
the forrn of :! cor!~cio~~s cabal exercising the pomer
of tie~~i~ioi\-making and vetoing, he overlooks a
more s11\1tieform of domination; one in which
those ~ 1 . artuz~lly o dominate are not conscious of
sult, he unduly emphasizes t h e importance of
initiating, deciding, a n d vetoing, and in the
process casts the pluralist conc1,usions of his
s t u d y into serious doubt.
We have contended in this paper t h a t a fresh
approach to the study of power is called for, a n
approach based upon a recognition of the two
faces of power. Under this approach t h e re-
searcher would begin-not, a s does t h e sociolo-
gist who asks, "Who rules?" nor as does the
pluralist who asks, "Does anyone have power?"
-but b y investigating t h e particular "mobili-
zation of bias" in t h e institution under scru-
tiny. Then, having analyzed the dominant
values, the myths a n d t h e established political
procedures and rules of t h e game, he mould
make a careful inquiry into which persons or
groups, if any, gain from t h e existing bias and
which, if any, are handicapped b y it. Kext, he
mould investigate t h e dynamics of nondecision-
making; t h a t is, he would examine t h e extent t o
which and the manner in which the status quo
oriented persons and groups influence those
community values and those political institu-
tions (as, e.g., the unanimity "rule" of Kew
York City's Board of Estimates1) which tend to
limit the scope of actual decision-making t o
"safeJ' issues. Finally, using his knowledge of
t h e restrictive face of power as a foundation for
analysis and as a standard for distinguishing
between "key" and "routine" political deci-
sions, the researcher would, after t h e manner of
the pluralists, analyze participation in decision-
making of concrete issues.
We reject in advance as unimpressive the
possible criticism t h a t this approach t o the
study of power is likely t o prove fruitless be-
cause i t goes beyond a n investigation of what is
objectively measurable. I n reacting against the
subjective aspects of the sociological model of
power, the pluralists have, we believe, made t h e
mistake of discarding L1unmeasurable ele-
ments" as unreal. I t is ironical t h a t , b y so doing,
they have exposed themselves t o the same
fundamental criticism they have so forcefully
levelled against t h e elitists: their approach t o
and assumptions about power predetermine
their findines and conclusions.
z'
it themselves, simply because their position of
dominance has never serioilsly beenchallenged.
81 Sayre and Kaufman, op. eit., p. 640. For per-
ceptive study of the "mobilization of bias" in a
rural American community, see Arthur Vidich and
Joseph Bensman, Small T o w n in Mass Society
(Princeton, 1958).
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 1 of 2 -

You have printed the following article:

Two Faces of Power
Peter Bachrach; Morton S. Baratz
The American Political Science Review, Vol. 56, No. 4. (Dec., 1962), pp. 947-952.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554%28196212%2956%3A4%3C947%3ATFOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from an
off-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Please
visit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

[Footnotes]

2
Absentee-Owned Corporations and Community Power Structure
Roland J. Pellegrin; Charles H. Coates
The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 61, No. 5. (Mar., 1956), pp. 413-419.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602%28195603%2961%3A5%3C413%3AACACPS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

2
The Role of Economic Dominants in Community Power Structure
Robert O. Schulze
American Sociological Review, Vol. 23, No. 1. (Feb., 1958), pp. 3-9.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28195802%2923%3A1%3C3%3ATROEDI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J

2
How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative
Nelson W. Polsby
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 3. (Aug., 1960), pp. 474-484.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816%28196008%2922%3A3%3C474%3AHTSCPT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

3
How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative
Nelson W. Polsby
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 3. (Aug., 1960), pp. 474-484.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816%28196008%2922%3A3%3C474%3AHTSCPT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS
- Page 2 of 2 -

4
How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative
Nelson W. Polsby
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 3. (Aug., 1960), pp. 474-484.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816%28196008%2922%3A3%3C474%3AHTSCPT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

5
How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative
Nelson W. Polsby
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 3. (Aug., 1960), pp. 474-484.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816%28196008%2922%3A3%3C474%3AHTSCPT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

6
How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative
Nelson W. Polsby
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 3. (Aug., 1960), pp. 474-484.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816%28196008%2922%3A3%3C474%3AHTSCPT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

10
How to Study Community Power: The Pluralist Alternative
Nelson W. Polsby
The Journal of Politics, Vol. 22, No. 3. (Aug., 1960), pp. 474-484.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816%28196008%2922%3A3%3C474%3AHTSCPT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-O

18
Review: The Mystery of Power
Reviewed Work(s):
Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers by Floyd Hunter
Herbert Kaufman; Victor Jones
Public Administration Review, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Summer, 1954), pp. 205-212.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0033-3352%28195422%2914%3A3%3C205%3ATMOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.