#maxmilliano lorenzi

[ann-archive]

subject: Steven Lukes

Greetings,

Have you ever heard of Steven Lukes?

I had not. I had stumbeled upon his name while looking at the outline for one of my papers. In an attempt to catergorize the long exhaustive list of men who over think media and commincation, his name had fallen under the "defining media" section.

Other individuals within this catergory would be Max Weber and John Durham Peters. While creating my outline on these individuals, I had not relaized the scope of work all three have done and I had uncovered my gross illeteracy in regards to figures within media studies. While expected, due to my exhaustive history of being terminally online, I deeply want to remedy this gap in knowledge.

My inadequate knowledge was considered upon earlier writings on Peters, however, there was something about Lukes that intrigued me moreso. I had made preliminary notes on the pre-readings and while his name only occured once in the textbook readings, the idea listed below had captivated me.

~'Power is found in the more subtle capacity to stop conflicts from emerging by preventing oppositional agendas from even developing in the first place.' (I had chosen not to do quotes as it's my summary on the textbooks interpretation of his writing). [2]

The textbook [1] also summarized Peters own thoughts on power:

“All individuals play a role in making, remaking and circulating meaning. Some individuals and groups, however, have more power than others within communicative process.”

My own interpretation of power, admitidly a very naive take on a nuanced topic, is that of control of meaning. Those who are able to control meaning are able to control the perception of right, wrong within society. Through of which, are then able to control the greater actions of society. The control of meaning can be done through propaganda or violence, but regardless the association of the nefarious and acceptable of actions are vital to the control of the actions of people.

While all three takes are similar. Peters and Lukes are more similar as they associate power with that of the masses and individual rather than the inanimate influences that surround them. Lukes believes that power is related to the ability to prevent individuals from doing something oppositional to the Kingpin; whereas Peters believes that power comes from the circulation of meaning.

As I am writing, I suppose my own interpretation of meaning alligns more with Peters. However, one cannot deny Lukes' own belief. The suppression and isolation of minority groups is a huge area within the control of power. Both are able to co-exist and the dynamic nature of humanity would be incorrect to keep each idea entirely seperate.

Anyway, I have ratteled far too much. My real intention was to summarize random thoughts and ideas in Steven Lukes' book on power. To be frank, most of my "summaries" in any writings while not be an exhaustive investigation on the writers of these works. Perhaps I skip to the end of each chapter and read the conclusion. Perhaps I read the entire chapter. Perhaps I read other interpretations. Who knows. I will, however, link whatever external sources I use as reference (read this one for a far better detailed summary on the book!!! i love them <333 [3]). If something is amiss. Let me know.

In this case, I will be looking at others talking of the book instead. This will be done on random bits and pieces and there will be no outline. Truly this is just an exploration on sections that tickle my fancy. To me it feels like a cute little bookclub and I'm an onlooker in a cafe that is far too interested in hearing everyone else rather than the actual book itself.

Stefano Guzzini [4] references Lukes in various sections of his thesis. He references page 31 of Power a Radical view. On this page, Lukes describes someone elses interpretation of power. Here he describes how power is how an individual is able to utilize individuals to come to a collective purpose; if the do not co-operate there will be consequences.

In reference to this page, Lukes writes one "the possibly conflictual nature of excerises of power can be lost from view." I adore this description as he also describes the differences between "power-to" and "power-over." In many interpretations of power, the difference between the two are often non-conflated. In page 31 of Lukes' work, the structure he is writing on is that of Talcott Parsons [5] and C. Wright Mills [6], both of who, as described by Lukes, write on how power is preventing the actions of others and the completion of wanted actions, and, the how power is the ability to do actions for the betterment of society, respectively.

The former describes "power-over" while the later descrives "power-to."

Maxmiliano Lorenzi [7] describes the book as a contribution to "American politics: dominated by rulung ekite or an example of pluralist democracy?" now I had no idea what a pluralist democracy was so I gave it a fun google.

Wikipedia, my beloved, decribes a pluralist democracy [8] as a "political system where there is more than one center of power. … In a pluralist democracy, individuals achieve positions of formal political authority by forming successful electoal coalitions."

In Lorenzi's description, he lists the various questions raised from Lukes' work: How do the powerful secure the compliance of those they dominate? How do the powerful secure their willing complicance? How to think about power theoretically? How to study it emperically?

In the broader spectrum of power he states that:

"The … core to any mention of power in the analysis of social relationships is the notion that A in some ways affects B in a significant manner."

While this is one of the main points of power, it is not something I had thought to quanitify directly.

Lorenzi simplifies the three conceptual maps which illustrates the three main views of power: the p;uralist view, the biew of critics of pluralism and the view of power. Respectively, the represent, a one, two, and three dimensional view. I highly recomend reading Lorenzi's summary as he does a marvelous job of simplifying the main three views of power and the focuses on all three.

To summarize his summary, [9] Lukes believes that the one dimensional and two dimensional views (considers "power as it pertains to conflicting interests between parties") are inadequete and prefers the three dimensional (considers "how those with power can avoid clashes of interests by shaping others' wants and desires").

One can probably tell that I am losing interest in this little investigation. Perhaps I will look around another day but for now I am a tad tired and must retire.

There are some other readings [10] that I may look at later, but that will be for another day.

Be well,

Ann A.

[1] https://books.google.co.nz/books/about/Media_and_Society.html?id=6DCYoAEACAAJ&redir_esc=y [2] https://voidnetwork.gr/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Power-A-Radical-View-Steven-Lukes.pdf [3] https://txteo.tumblr.com/post/158966646260/steven-lukes-1974-power-a-radical-view [4] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/45672871.pdf [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talcott_Parsons [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Wright_Mills [7] https://cpb-eu-w2.wpmucdn.com/caledonianblogs.net/dist/2/77/files/2009/12/Lorenzi-Reading.pdf [8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralist_democracy [9] https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/developingwisdom/chapter/dimensions-of-power/#:~:text=Steven%20Lukes%20developed%20a%20framework,shaping%20others'%20wants%20and%20desires. [10] https://www.jstor.org/stable/41802305