Abstract
The first question to be considered is straightforward. If we say that information about actors is essential to any discussion of power, then what is to count as an actor? The approach of most contributors to the community power debate has been essentially behaviourist, emphasising the role of individuals. Agger, Goldrich and Swanson, for example, assert that ‘action units are people!.1 Although Hunter refers initially to power being structured ‘into a dual relationship between governmental and economic authorities’,2 his study of Atlanta ignores the possible significance of institutional forces, concentrating exclusively on the activities of individuals. Presthus takes a similar approach, completely ignoring, for example, the role of political parties and local government. Dahl’s individualist emphasis appears to be unequivocal, but, interestingly enough, much of his study of New Haven is given over to the specification of leader and sub-leader roles. This implies a degree of institutionalisation of behaviour whose implications are not, however, examined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
End-notes
Robert E. Agger, David Goldrich and Bert E. Swanson The Rulers and the Ruled: Power and Impotence in American Communities (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964) p. 10.
Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure (New York: Anchor, 1963) pp. 5–6.
Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View (London: Macmillan, 1974) p. 3.
Alan Bradshaw, ‘A critique of Steven Lukes’ “Power: A Radical View”’, Sociology, 10 (1976) pp. 121–7, at p. 125.
Steven Lukes, ‘Reply to Bradshaw’, Sociology, 10 (1976) pp. 129–32, at p. 131.
Stewart Clegg, The Theory of Power and Organization (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979) pp. 57–64; Graham Cox, ‘Intentions, structures and the dissolution of “Power”?’, paper presented to the EGOS Symposium on Power, University of Bradford, 6–7 May 1976, p. 5; Bradshaw, ‘A Critique of Lukes’, p. 125.
See, for example, David Butler and Donald Stokes, Political Change in Britain: The Evolution of Electoral Choice, 2nd ed.(London: Macmillan, 1974) Chapter 16, ‘Images of the parties’.
Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York: The Free Press, 1954) p. 102.
I. C. Jarvie, Universities and Left Review (1958–9) p. 57
cited in Steven Lukes, Essays in Social Theory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977) p. 180.
Joseph Agassi, ‘Methodological individualism’, British Journal of Sociology, 11 (1960) pp. 244–70;
J. O. Wisdom, ‘Situational individualism and the emergent group properties’, in Robert Borger and Frank Cioffi, Explanation in the Behavioural Sciences (London: Cambridge University Press, 1970) pp. 271–96.
This argument is developed by S. J. Stoljar, Groups and Entities: An Inquiry into Corporate Theory (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1973) p. 189.
See F. A. Hayek, Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967) p. 100;
K. R. Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, vol. II (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966) pp. 94–5.
For criticism of Hayek on this point see Norman P. Barry, Hayek’s Social and Economic Philosophy (London: Macmillan, 1979) p. 37. Partridge reminds us, though, that ‘a realistic or adequate study of political or social power cannot afford to discount unintended effects’.
P. H. Partridge, ‘Some notes on the concept of power’, Political Studies, 11 (1963) pp. 107–25, at p. 114.
Hunter, Community Power Structure, p. 222; and Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, Conn. and London: Yale University Press, 1961) pp. 332–3.
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government (London: Dent, 1910) pp. 151–2.
G. W. Jones, Responsibility and Government (London: London School of Economics, 1977) p. 3.
Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, Power and Poverty: Theory and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970) p. 44.
Geraint Parry and Peter Morriss, ‘When is a decision not a decision?’, in Ivor Crewe (ed.) British Political Sociology Yearbook, vol. 1 (London: Croom Helm, 1974) pp. 317–36, at p. 326.
E. E. Schattschneider, The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960) p. 71.
Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, ‘Power and its Two Faces Revisited: A Reply to Geoffrey Debnam’, American Political Science Review, 69 (1975) pp. 900–904, at p. 902.
Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, ‘Decisions and nondecisions: an analytical framework’, American Political Science Review, 57 (1963) pp. 632–42, at p. 641. This passage was omitted when the article was reprinted in Bachrach and Baratz, Power and Poverty.
Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, ‘Letter to the Editor’, American Political Science Review, 62 (1868) pp. 1268–9, at p. 1268.
Dahl; for example, argues that ‘Unless there is some “connection” between A and a, then no power relation can be said to exist. I shall leave the concept of “connection” undefined…’. See Robert A. Dahl, ‘The concept of power’, Behavioral Science, 2 (1957) pp. 201–15, at p. 204.
See, for example, Nelson W. Polsby, ‘Empirical investigation of mobilization of bias in community power research’, Political Studies, 27 (1979) pp. 527–41, at P. 535.
Matthew A. Crenson, The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decision making in the Cities (Baltimore, Md and London: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971) p. 78.
Edward Greer, ‘Air pollution and corporate power: municipal reform limits in a black city’, Politics and Society 4 (1974) 483–510, at p. 493.
John Gaventa, Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980).
This is a point that is central to the critique of Dahl’s study of New Haven elaborated by William G. Domhoff, Who Really Rules? New Haven and Community Power Reexamined (Santa Monica, Cal.: Goodyear, 1969).
See Raymond E. Wolfinger, ‘Nondecisions and the study of local politics’, American Political Science Review, 65 (1977) pp. 1068–80, at p. 1077, where he asks ‘Do we attribute power to John Dewey for his continuous influence in American education?’ The answer is ‘yes’ as long as we can isolate the appropriate elements.
Terence Ball, ‘Power, causation and explanation’, Polity, 8 (1975–6) pp. 189–214, at p. 190.
Richard M. Merelman, ‘Reply to “Comment” by Bachrach and Baratz’, American Political Science Review, 62 (1968) pp. 1269.
de Crespigny, ‘Power’. Political Studies, 16 (1968) pp. 192–205, at p. 194.
See also P. H. Partridge, ‘Some notes on the concept of power’, Political Studies, 11 (1962) pp. 107–25, at p. 114; Ball, ‘Power’, p. 205;
and Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis (London: Heinemann, 1979) p. 215, who use the term ‘negative power’ to refer to ‘the ability to stop things being done’, which is a curious and unhelpful usage.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1984 Geoffrey Debnam
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Debnam, G. (1984). Actors and Action. In: The Analysis of Power. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17360-0_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17360-0_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-17362-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-17360-0
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)