Advertisement

Sociological Approaches to Power and Decisions

  • Roger King

Abstract

This chapter examines differing concepts of power presented by sociologists and political scientists in recent accounts of political processes. Consequently we will be less concerned with terminological definitions of power and associated concepts, such as authority, influence, force, coercion and the like than with exploring the different philosophies or values—ways of seeing the world-that underpin various approaches for understanding political decision making. As we will see, this is no easy task, for social scientists are considerably at odds as to how to go about assessing power. Many share Steven Lukes’s view (1974) that the concept of power itself is an 4 “essentially contested concept” that rules out a universally accepted agreement because different conceptions of power are tied to quite fundamental differences of values. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify three or four major approaches for studying power that elucidate the primary methodological issues involved.

Keywords

Political Participation Policy Preference Relative Autonomy Sociological Approach Community Power 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. (1970). Power and poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bradshaw, A. (1976). A critique of Steven Lukes’s Power: A radical view. Sociology, 10, 121–127.Google Scholar
  4. Crenson, M. (1971). The unpolitics of air pollution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dahl, R. (1961). Who governs? New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dunleavy, P. (1980). Urban political analysis. London: Macmillan. Friedland, R. ( 1982 ). Power and crisis in the city. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation crisis. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  8. Hunter, F. (1953). Community power structure. Chapel Hill, NC: Chapel Hill Books.Google Scholar
  9. Lindblom, C. (1977). Politics and markets. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Marcuse, H. (1964). One-dimensional man. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  12. Offe, C., & Wiesenthal, H. (1980). Two logics of collective action. Political Power and Social Theory, 1, 67–115.Google Scholar
  13. Parry, G., & Morriss, P. (1974). When is a decision not a decision? In I. Crewe (Ed.), British political sociology yearbook (Vol. 1 ). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  14. Parsons, T. (1967). On the concept of political power. In T. Parsons (Ed.), Sociological theory and modern society. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Polsby, N. (1963). Community power and political theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Poulantzas, N. (1973). Political power and social classes. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  17. Saunders, P. (1979). Urban politics. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  18. Vogel, D. (1983). The power of business in America: A re-appraisal. British Journal of Political Science, 13, 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wolfinger, R. (1971). Non-decisions and the study of local politics. American Political Science Review, 65, 1063–1080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger King
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Behavioural SciencesHuddersfield PolytechnicHuddersfield, West YorkshireEngland

Personalised recommendations