1

Yagmur Bilge Kenar 13098209

Group 8 Assignment 1

Marisa Mori

23.09.2022

Wordcount: 1083

An Investigation of Steven Lukes' Three-Dimensional Power

Every individual is often challenged with the paradox of options and the repercussions of
decisions that influence them. How and who exerts power over this decision-making process
remains a mystery in politics. Steven Lukes' thinking is likewise fueled by these crucial
questions. In his book, "Power: A Radical View," he analyzes power in terms of three
dimensions, criticizing conventional conceptualizations of power (Lukes 1974). This essay
distinguishes these three dimensions of power and demonstrates them with real-world
examples. It does so by introducing the dimensions, applying them to cases drawn from the
last episode titled "Doubt" of the documentary series The Power of Big Oil, and lastly
discussing the relevance of Lukes' conceptualisation in contemporary times.

Lukes identifies three conceptual views of power: decision-making power (one-

dimensional), non-decision-making power (two-dimensional), and ideological power (three-
dimensional). Dahl and Polsby's pluralism provides the foundation for the one-dimensional
viewpoint. The emphasis in this viewpoint is on examining observable behavior (Lukes 1974:
18).This is the most visible dimension, which studies the decision-making process in overt
conflicts between the parties. This viewpoint assumes that the parties' conflicting behaviors
reflect their subjective interests, and Dahl argues that in this case, having opposing viewpoints
on an important issue is essential (Dahl 1958: 467). According to pluralists, interests are policy
preferences,so a conflict of interests is a conflict of policy preferences. Pluralism rejects the
idea that parties fail to express or misjudge their interests (Lukes 1974: 19).
 2

Bachrach and Baratz criticize pluralists' one-dimensional view of power because it

ignores the fact that power is often wielded by limiting decision-making to "safe subjects"
(Bachrach and Baratz 1962: 948). This repressive technique is known as "non-decision
making." A "non-decision" is a decision that eliminates covert grievances from the political
agenda due to their being deemed unworthy of public scrutiny and conflict. Non-decision
making is influenced by the mobilization of bias. Schattschneider addresses this phenomenon
by arguing that all forms of political organization have a bias regarding which subjects are
incorporated into politics and which are organized out of politics. The mobilization of bias
assures that some (subjective) interests are excluded from the political agenda (Schattschneider
1960: 71). Consequently, the second dimension of power is wielded not just through decisions
but also through "non-decisions."

Three-dimensional power introduced by Lukes is a critique of the two-dimensional

view owing to its behaviourism and the fact that system's bias is the socially structured
behaviour of groups and power structures (Lukes 1974: 25-26). In his perspective, the supreme
kind of power is to prevent people from having grievances by shaping their perceptions and
preferences so they perceive no other option (Lukes 1974: 23). Lukes differentiates subjective
and objective interests since individuals can't be aware of their real interests due to mind
manipulation. It is therefore misleading to suggest that no power is being exercised in the
absence of conflict (Lukes 1974: 28).

The dimensions Lukes depicts do not conflict with one another, but rather enrich one
another. Each dimension has a significance in the identification of power displays, with the
higher dimensions building on the foundation laid by the lower ones. Dimensions of power
allow for a more integrated comprehension of the whole, which is why they are referred to as
"dimensions" and not "levels". They can therefore be interpreted by applying the concept of a
three-dimensional cube to the display of power. The concept of a three-dimensional cube of
power could be explained as follows: first, a single line (one dimension) is completed into a
square (two dimensions), and then squares are added together to make a cube (three
dimensions).
 3

To further clarify the dimensions, it is helpful to examine their real-world applications.

This is demonstrated by using examples from the third episode of the three-part documentary
series, The Power of Big Oil: Delay. This episode of the documentary addresses the politicians’
and business executives’ denial of climate change by postponing necessary action and
disbelieving the scientific evidence (Frontline 2022). These scientists publicly expressed their
criticism through the evidence they gathered and challenged the industries, which constitutes
an open conflict. The scepticism of corporate executives and politicians persisted despite all
the criticism. Therefore, this is a power display in the form of decision-making in an open
conflict between policymakers and scientists. This illustrates the first dimension clearly.

Although less obvious, the second dimension is nevertheless plainly present throughout
the episode. Through agenda setting, politicians set the narrative by focusing on the possible
harm to employment in the gas and oil industries due to the substitution of fossil fuels with
renewable energy alternatives. Therefore, the second dimension of power can be observed as
those who hold the power are not vulnerable to attack as they can shift the subject of debate.
Additionally, Ernest Moriz utilized his power to falsify the scientific integrity of international
documents by arguing that Cornell’s work is based on unsubstantiated estimates (Frontline
2022). Instead of providing scientific justification for the study he directed, which supports the
natural gas industry, he asserted that the study was "transparent." Here, Ernest Moriz makes a
"no choice" by suppressing criticism from scientists that could lead to an open conflict. So,
"non-decision making," which is an indicator of the second dimension of power, keeps the
possibility of conflict alive.

In the episode, the third dimension is also apparent. The characteristics of politicians'
and business executives' mistrust of science altered the perception of the citizens regarding the
reality of climate change. The objective of the industry's campaigns was to manipulate
individuals’ minds by preventing them from even recognizing their own interests. As climate
change will unavoidably impact every citizen, it is objectively in their best interest to oppose
actions taken by fossil fuel advocates. However, they are pressured by authorities to doubt
climate change, which hides this potential conflict. This exemplifies the type of subtle power
display Lukes refers to in his third dimension.
 4

Lukes's description of the three dimensions of power contributes to our understanding

of the practice. Lukes' description of the third dimension of power is highly relevant in 2022,
as the misinformation crisis and the rise of populism are causing more harm than ever before.
The invisible power of decision-making through shrewd manipulation of emotion suppresses
the objective interests of others. In modern times, those in authority use their decisions or non-
decisions to find political cover to keep making huge profits. Consequently, Lukes's
conceptualization provides us with a framework for understanding the power display and
enables us to pursue our own interests.
 5

Bibliography:
Bachrach, P. en Baratz, M. (1962). “Two Faces of Power.”, American Political Science Review,
56: 947-952.
Barnwell, R., Mohammad, G., Edge, D. (2022). The Power of Big Oil - Part Three: Delay.
United States: Public Broadcasting Service.
Dahl, R. (1958). “A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model”, American Political Science Review,
52(2): 463-469.
Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View. Macmillan.
Schattschneider, E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in
America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.