Bachrach and Baratz:
“Two Faces of Power”
Summary:
Bachrach and Baratz’s article “Two Faces of Power” (1962) briefly explains how sociologists and political scientists view power in different ways. They note that sociologists find that “power is highly centralized” while political scientists characterize it as “widely diffused” (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 947). Although political scientists themselves, Bachrach and Baratz contend that neither notion gives the whole picture. They posit “two faces of power, neither of which the sociologists see, and only one of which the political scientists see” (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 947). The first “face” of power has to do with the exercise of power on critical issues. This side of power (put forth by Robert Dahl) is the side that the authors believe political scientists do recognize. The second “face,” which the authors feel is unrecognized by political scientists, is the “restrictive face of power” (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 952). It is this form of power that they feel can inform the first. This "restrictive face of power" involves the "dynamics of nondecisionmaking" (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 952). In other words, influence is used to limit the scope of discussion or to prevent conflicts from ever being brought to the forefront. Bachrach and Baratz are quite critical of the way political scientists determine critical or “key” issues, and suggest that the “restrictive face of power” can be used “as a foundation for analysis and as a standard for distinguishing between ‘key’ and ‘routine’ political decisions” (1962, 952). While they recognize that identifying these restrictive forces is a subjective act, they discredit in advance any suggestion that this is not a useful construct of power.
The following looks more specifically at the theory put forth by Bachrach and Baratz.
Behavior: What is the relationship of individuals' behavior to the exercise of power? What role does behavior play?
Behavior plays a critical role in understanding power in its restrictive sense. Bachrach and Baratz also support that behavior of individuals is related to power when a person limits the scope of the discussion. The authors say, "Of course power is exercised when A participates in the making of decisions that affect B. But power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the extent that A succeeds in doing this, B is prevented...from bringing to the fore any issues that might in their resolution be seriously detrimental to A's set of preferences" (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 948). This sounds exactly like a district with which we are familiar, in that you can only participate (aka talk) in administrator meetings if you have been put on the agenda. Agendas consist of routine, logistical items like lawn-mowers and deadlines to submit documents, whereas items of potential discussion like installing video cameras in the hallways are not "discussable" items but are merely placed on the agenda to inform administrators that it will be happening.
Decision making and control: Who makes decisions and who has control? How do decision making and control function in the exercise of power?
Control is in the hands of those who can manipulate the issues to be considered, not in the hands of those who make the concrete decisions. Bachrach and Baratz contend this because decision-makers could simply be acting on agenda items that reflect “’safe’ issues” funneled to them by others with this restrictive form of power (1962, p. 948). We believe this is how many superintendents exercise control over their school boards. They bring "safe" issues to the table for school board consideration and reserve the right to personally arbitrate other decisions. This can also be seen between principals and teachers. Often committees with teachers are formed to decide relatively inoffensive things while more substanative decisions are made without discussion. These actions give power.
Conflict: What is the status of conflict, and what is its role in the exercise of power?
It seems that power in its restrictive sense is about avoiding conflict. Bachrach and Baratz note that there is power when one works to “limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous” (1962, p. 948). In addition, Bachrach and Baratz point out that "to the extent that a person or group - consciously or unconsciously - creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or groups has power" (1682, p. 949). An important aspect of the previous statement is the "consciously or unconsciously" part because it supposes that power exists even if it is not consciously recognized as power. Is this a dangerous form of power? If an action is not recognized as power it may not be questioned or challenged.
Interests: How are individuals' interests advanced? Protected?
Individuals with power have their interests either advanced or protected by the ability of the individual to prevent others from even bringing up any issues that might result in decisions that go against their preferences. On the other hand, individuals without power (or with less power) are blocked from advancing their own interests out of self-preservation. Bacharach and Baratz describe a professor who is ready to bring up an issue at a meeting but chooses not to at the last moment because he recognizes that it against his self-interest to raise an issue that may not have wide support and that would be nearly impossible to address given existing structures.
Moral orientation: What are the normative goals that the exercise of power aims to achieve?
The exercise of power aims to maintain the status quo by determining the rules of the game (Bacharach and Baratz, 1962, p. 952) and by not addressing issues that may be deemed "unsafe."
Summary:
Bachrach and Baratz’s article “Two Faces of Power” (1962) briefly explains how sociologists and political scientists view power in different ways. They note that sociologists find that “power is highly centralized” while political scientists characterize it as “widely diffused” (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 947). Although political scientists themselves, Bachrach and Baratz contend that neither notion gives the whole picture. They posit “two faces of power, neither of which the sociologists see, and only one of which the political scientists see” (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 947). The first “face” of power has to do with the exercise of power on critical issues. This side of power (put forth by Robert Dahl) is the side that the authors believe political scientists do recognize. The second “face,” which the authors feel is unrecognized by political scientists, is the “restrictive face of power” (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 952). It is this form of power that they feel can inform the first. This "restrictive face of power" involves the "dynamics of nondecisionmaking" (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 952). In other words, influence is used to limit the scope of discussion or to prevent conflicts from ever being brought to the forefront. Bachrach and Baratz are quite critical of the way political scientists determine critical or “key” issues, and suggest that the “restrictive face of power” can be used “as a foundation for analysis and as a standard for distinguishing between ‘key’ and ‘routine’ political decisions” (1962, 952). While they recognize that identifying these restrictive forces is a subjective act, they discredit in advance any suggestion that this is not a useful construct of power.
The following looks more specifically at the theory put forth by Bachrach and Baratz.
Behavior: What is the relationship of individuals' behavior to the exercise of power? What role does behavior play?
Behavior plays a critical role in understanding power in its restrictive sense. Bachrach and Baratz also support that behavior of individuals is related to power when a person limits the scope of the discussion. The authors say, "Of course power is exercised when A participates in the making of decisions that affect B. But power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A. To the extent that A succeeds in doing this, B is prevented...from bringing to the fore any issues that might in their resolution be seriously detrimental to A's set of preferences" (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962, p. 948). This sounds exactly like a district with which we are familiar, in that you can only participate (aka talk) in administrator meetings if you have been put on the agenda. Agendas consist of routine, logistical items like lawn-mowers and deadlines to submit documents, whereas items of potential discussion like installing video cameras in the hallways are not "discussable" items but are merely placed on the agenda to inform administrators that it will be happening.
Decision making and control: Who makes decisions and who has control? How do decision making and control function in the exercise of power?
Control is in the hands of those who can manipulate the issues to be considered, not in the hands of those who make the concrete decisions. Bachrach and Baratz contend this because decision-makers could simply be acting on agenda items that reflect “’safe’ issues” funneled to them by others with this restrictive form of power (1962, p. 948). We believe this is how many superintendents exercise control over their school boards. They bring "safe" issues to the table for school board consideration and reserve the right to personally arbitrate other decisions. This can also be seen between principals and teachers. Often committees with teachers are formed to decide relatively inoffensive things while more substanative decisions are made without discussion. These actions give power.
Conflict: What is the status of conflict, and what is its role in the exercise of power?
It seems that power in its restrictive sense is about avoiding conflict. Bachrach and Baratz note that there is power when one works to “limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous” (1962, p. 948). In addition, Bachrach and Baratz point out that "to the extent that a person or group - consciously or unconsciously - creates or reinforces barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or groups has power" (1682, p. 949). An important aspect of the previous statement is the "consciously or unconsciously" part because it supposes that power exists even if it is not consciously recognized as power. Is this a dangerous form of power? If an action is not recognized as power it may not be questioned or challenged.
Interests: How are individuals' interests advanced? Protected?
Individuals with power have their interests either advanced or protected by the ability of the individual to prevent others from even bringing up any issues that might result in decisions that go against their preferences. On the other hand, individuals without power (or with less power) are blocked from advancing their own interests out of self-preservation. Bacharach and Baratz describe a professor who is ready to bring up an issue at a meeting but chooses not to at the last moment because he recognizes that it against his self-interest to raise an issue that may not have wide support and that would be nearly impossible to address given existing structures.
Moral orientation: What are the normative goals that the exercise of power aims to achieve?
The exercise of power aims to maintain the status quo by determining the rules of the game (Bacharach and Baratz, 1962, p. 952) and by not addressing issues that may be deemed "unsafe."
No comments:
Post a Comment