Friday, September 1, 2017

9/1 Power





Today's class there are four articles we are going over, "Inverted Totalitarianism" by Sheldon Wolin; "Despite Negativity, Americans Mixed on Ideal Role of Gov't" by Frank Newport and "Americans Names Government as Number One Problem," by Justin McCarthy, both published by Gallup Inc. There was also the essay "Two Faces of Power" by Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz. 

Wolin's essay deals with what he considers to be the corruption of all American political institutions: legislatures, the courts, political parties, the media, universities, labor unions and more. He states:
Thus the elements are in place: a weak legislative body, a legal system that is both compliant and repressive, a party system in which one party, whether in opposition or in the majority, is bent upon reconstituting the existing system so as to permanently favor a ruling class of the wealthy, the well-connected and the corporate, while leaving the poorer citizens with a sense of helplessness and political despair, and, at the same time, keeping the middle classes dangling between fear of unemployment and expectations of fantastic rewards once the new economy recovers. That scheme is abetted by a sycophantic and increasingly concentrated media; by the integration of universities with their corporate benefactors; by a propaganda machine institutionalized in well-funded think tanks and conservative foundations; by the increasingly closer cooperation between local police and national law enforcement agencies aimed at identifying terrorists, suspicious aliens and domestic dissidents.


Wolin argues, this is due to the American pursuit of Empire since the end of World War II, but during the Bush administration (and after) has become increasingly overt in its imperialistic designs: 
The change has been intimated by the sudden popularity of two political terms rarely applied earlier to the American political system. “Empire” and “superpower” both suggest that a new system of power, concentrated and expansive, has come into existence and supplanted the old terms. “Empire” and “superpower” accurately symbolize the projection of American power abroad, but for that reason they obscure the internal consequences. Consider how odd it would sound if we were to refer to “the Constitution of the American Empire” or “superpower democracy.” The reason they ring false is that “constitution” signifies limitations on power, while “democracy” commonly refers to the active involvement of citizens with their government and the responsiveness of government to its citizens. For their part, “empire” and “superpower” stand for the surpassing of limits and the dwarfing of the citizenry.

This has created a new form of political power in the U.S. in what he calls inverted totalitarian. Where historical examples of totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union featured a leader surrounded by cheering masses. The inverted state prefers the anonymity of the corporate-state the fusion of economic and political power, and passive citizens who do not participate in politics at all: 
By inverted I mean that while the current system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany, before the Nazis took power, the “streets” were dominated by totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of democracy was confined to the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive–while the real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government.
Or another example of the inversion: Under Nazi rule there was never any doubt about “big business” being subordinated to the political regime. In the United States, however, it has been apparent for decades that corporate power has become so predominant in the political establishment, particularly in the Republican Party, and so dominant in its influence over policy, as to suggest a role inversion the exact opposite of the Nazis’. At the same time, it is corporate power, as the representative of the dynamic of capitalism and of the ever-expanding power made available by the integration of science and technology with the structure of capitalism, that produces the totalizing drive that, under the Nazis, was supplied by ideological notions such as Lebensraum.

Wolin still retained some faith in the Democratic Party, but had he lived to see the 2016 election (he died in 2015 at 93) would he still retain faith? Does he critique need to go even further back to the origins of the country? Although some may consider Wolin alarmist, it is hard to deny these conclusions if the institutions of American society are examined in detail, as we will do throughout the class. Another issue addressed by Wolin in his earlier work is the extent in which people are taught an anti-political language that he associated with liberalism, that elevates the private realm of economics over the public realm of politics. This earlier view relates to some issues of inverted totalitarianism, particularly the passivity of modern citizens. For Wolin, the political refers to moments where people act together cooperatively for their own well-being, seen for example when people respond to a crisis, however moments of the political are rare, politics then refers to the everyday business of government and the endless competition of interests. Power is the ability of the people collectively to do things they would not be able to do on their own, but the meaning of power is perhaps the most debated concept in all of the social sciences.


"Two Faces of Power" comes from the American Political Science Review [abbreviated as APSR in the syllabus] the most influential academic journal in the field of political science. Journals like this publish essays of contemporary scholars in the field (reviewed by other scholars), this particular essay is the most cited article of this journal.

In this essay, Bachrach and Baratz are concerned with analyzing political power. The concept of power is a central concept in political science, but its meaning is not always clear. Power is usually understood as a relationship between people, not an individual quality that someone possesses. Since power is defined as a relationship between people, power is by definition a social relation. Part of the reason this article is so influential is because they begin from a previous discussion regarding the nature of power between sociologist C. Wright Mills and Robert Dahl, a leading "pluralist theorist" in political science.

Mills most famous work in this area was The Power Elite first published in 1956 at the height of the Cold War. Mills argued that political power in the U.S. was concentrated among what he called the "power elite" or the close-knit group made up of government bureaucracy, the military, and corporate elites. This view was affirmed by of all people Dwight Eisenhower, Allied Commander during World War II and President of the U.S. during the 1950s, who in his farewell address warned of the "military-industrial complex."
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later

However, there were many criticisms of Mills. Bachrach and Baratz side with Dahl, arguing that Mills sees power in a one-dimensional sense, unlike the theory of pluralism which sees power divided up between different groups. The theory of pluralism, is found in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, but developed in modern times by theorists like Dahl that sees power as divided between different groups and institutions which provide a check and balance on each other. Pluralists argue that Mills ignored empirical evidence that shows multiple groups are able to exercise some power over each other, power is defined as influence in the law-making process or decisions made by the government. Dahl's work shows the division of power between local communities in his book Who Governs? published a few years after Mills in 1961. However, Dahl limits his research to the local community, but Mills analyzes the highest levels of political power.

The pluralist approach to analyzing power can be broken down as follows:
a) key issues: identify important public issues that are open to disagreement.
b) actors: who are the key groups or individuals involved in this issue?
c) behavior: analysis must give a thorough and detailed account of the behavior of actors in this decision.
d) outcome: what are the actual policies or laws adopted regarding key issues?

By following this approach, pluralists believe you can give an accurate analysis of who wields political power.


In the article "Two Faces of Power," Bachrach and Baratz, argue that Dahl is also one-dimensional because he limits his definition of power to decisions in a formal political setting. They call this the first face of power, but the second face of power has to take into consideration what they call the second face of power, or "mobilization of bias," but now generally referred to as "framing." To frame an issue is to define what is considered an important issue and what are the appropriate choices for dealing with this issue. In other words, Dahl takes for granted the choices that people make in a political setting but does not consider that political debates might censor or exclude other important issues or alternatives. The ability to limit discussion, according to Bachrach and Baratz, is an exercise of power, but one that is completely missed by Dahl.

To influence what is considered an important issue is one example of this, whether it is the environment, drugs, abortion, or gay rights, before the 1970s these issues were not significantly debated in national politics.

Another example could be the limited choices given by the Democratic and Republican parties both of whom are rated very low in terms of public opinion. More recently, libertarian and social democratic movements have arisen to challenge the often stale and repetitive choices given by both major parties. In a modern setting, the media plays an important role in determining "key issues." Simply by reporting on certain issues or focusing on certain aspects of issues the media gives the impression that these are the important issues. To properly analyze power requires you to investigate how issues are framed, what is excluded, and most importantly who benefits from this. Once this step has been taken can you begin to analyze power in the way described by pluralists.

Power is also exercised when issues are "re-framed" or in other words when the boundaries of discussion are changed. Two examples can be the "Occupy Wall Street" movement that reframed the economic discussion in the country to focus on income inequality using terms like "we are the 99%." Also, the  civil rights and black powers movements in the 1960s and 70s that changed the discussion on race in the country as well as, focusing more attention on institutionalized racism in the North. By changing the debate, or reframing the issues, these groups were able to exercise power.

The concept of power was further expanded on by sociologist Steven Lukes who argued there are actually "three dimensions of power": the first being political decisions (Dahl), the second is framing, or controlling what issues and policies are discussed (Bachrach and Baratz), but the third is the power to influence values or social norms, that is to control the basic ideas of right and wrong and what is considered good or bad. Lukes argues it is ultimately what people consider to be right or wrong, or normal, that will influence what choices are available and what decisions are made. In our society today, there is significant debate over whether "capitalism" is truly a beneficial economic system for the majority of people, or whether or not "socialism" is a better alternative. During the Cold War era in the U.S., capitalism was generally valued as something "good," and socialism was considered "evil" and associated with the Soviet Union. However, since the occupy movements (and associated movements like CrimethInc.) and the rise of socialist candidates like Bernie Sanders, there exists now a renewed debate over the how we value these economic systems.

http://www.crimethinc.com/tools/deluxe/pyramid_24x36.pdf
The diagram above, can be thought of as an exercise of power because it tries to influence your basic values towards capitalism.

Power over values should not be mistaken as a more peaceful or benevolent form of power. Although it is easy to think of the use of force as the "bad" form of power, and influencing values as "good," history shows many examples of political movements that try to influence people's values in a manipulative way. Adolf Hitler for example is known for developing what is known as the "big lie" theory (the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it), and once in power the Nazis were known for their extensive use of propaganda as a way of consolidating their power over the masses (in addition, of course, to the blatant use of force).

In political science one way of trying to interpret and measure political values is to conduct public opinion polls. A small sampling of a few thousand people are given a questionnaire to fill out, the results of which are combined and calculated in a way that is believed to reflect the general attitude of the entire population. Modern public opinion polls were created by George Gallup in the 1930s who also founded the organization that bears his name, still generally considered the most influential company that conducts these polls. Polls also help shape discussions by identifying what important issues are, and thus also exercise power.

The results of this poll and commentary reflect the generally negative opinions that Americans have towards the government. Negative attitudes towards the government would mean that choices for government action will be limited since people are skeptical over the benefits of government action. Overall, the poll shows that people are distrustful of the government but are also skeptical of taking away too much government power. In terms of political parties, when a party is in power their supporters clearly support more government intervention, than when they are out of power, this suggests that voters are less concerned about the power of government itself, but the power of opposing parties. Furthermore, there are often contradictions in the results surveyed. For example, although people still commonly identify the term socialism in a negative way, there is more support for specific policies associated with socialism like a single-payer healthcare system or free tuition for public colleges. Another well known example, is that people also respond negatively to the word "welfare" but show much more support when the term is re-phrased as "support for the poor," or something similar like that. This suggests that public opinion polls themselves might be limited in their usefulness, as it does not take into consideration how well informed people are on political issues before they express an opinion.



Assignment: Choose a quote from one of the readings, write out the quote. Then, explain the meaning of the quote, and why you chose the quote. In other words, three paragraphs: quote, meaning, why you chose it. This should be posted on your blog. All of the weekly assignments follow the same format.

26 comments:

  1. Cristina Morel
    Power is also exercised when issues are "re-framed" or in other words when the boundaries of discussion are changed. Two examples can be the "Occupy Wall Street" movement that reframed the economic discussion in the country to focus on income inequality using terms like "we are the 99%." Also, the "Black Power" movement in the late 1960s and 70s that changed the discussion on race in the country by taking a more militant stance than the earlier civil rights movement, as well as, focusing more attention on institutionalized racism in the North. By changing the debate, or reframing the issues, these groups were able to exercise power.
    The concept of power was further expanded on by sociologist Steven Lukes who argued there are actually "three dimensions of power": the first being political decisions (Dahl), the second is framing (Bachrach and Baratz), and the third is power to influence values or social norms. Lukes argues it is ultimately what people consider to be right or wrong, or normal, that will influence what choices are available and what decisions are made.

    For me the meaning of this passage is when people are together fighting for what they want they can obtain more power. This passage explains that when people are united is when they get strengths to confront any issues. For example, any social problems, like in our communities problems, or other problems which are affecting many people. However, many people think they cannot make any different and they prefer to stay out of the groups who are trying to change the government’s decisions. These passages emphasize about movements like, “Occupy wall Street” and ‘’Black Power,” which fought for their rights. These movements can be good examples on how to create conscious about something that are causing discomfort in our lives. But, when people are united in any country the government can recognize that not only the government can have power in the nation. Moreover, like Steven Lukes argued about the” three dimension of power,” first S. Lukas mentioned political decision, second is framing, and third power to influence values or social norms. In my opinion I think could be more maybe. About our political issues, everyone think they have the reason, the problem that can be hard for a group not are the problems for others. For example, people who have enough food at their home do not think about malnourishment. We do not have a balance for all types of problems. The government no always try to resolve the problems in the ways the people want. It is when people think about the selection they did when they went to vote for their candidates, and after that they realize if the nation will need a change or should continue with the same government.
    I choose this passage because every day we can see injustice around the world, not only at USA. At least, I like the USA justice system more in this country than my own country. I like when people can fight for their rights and they can be heard and can find solutions when they unite their voices. When people are guided by the country’s rules and respect those and they are also respected too, they like the system in which they are living.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Cristina! This is good but this should be posted on your blog. Also, you should quote from the readings on blackboard.

      People exercise power when they bring awareness to issues like malnourishment...It's true that many people don't realize that. I like what you said about people actually liking the system they are living in!

      Delete
    2. My mistake. Thanks for letting me know. It is my first time taking online classes and using a blog.

      Delete
  2. I'm confused on the assignment due the 19th.

    Do we choose a paragraph from what you've written above or do we choose a paragraph from one of the assigned essays ("Despite Negativity, Americans Mixed on Ideal Role of Gov't" by Frank Newport, "Americans Names Government as Number One Problem," by Justin McCarthy or "Two Faces of Power" by Peter Bachrach and Morton Barat)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Choose a paragraph from one of the assigned essays.

    ReplyDelete
  4. https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1236520776341974049#editor/target=post;postID=6546104950417867467;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am having trouble understanding the assignment do I just choose one ? do I need to write about the three of them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read all three assigned readings, and choose one paragraph from one of the works. I was a bit confused at first as well.

      Delete
    2. Just a paragraph not one of the three readings? This is confusing

      Delete
    3. Just a paragraph not one of the three readings? This is confusing

      Delete
    4. yeah i know , was a bit confusing at first. read all three assignments , choose one that stood out the most to you and once you choose that one assignment choose a paragraph form it and follow the structure of what the assignments is asking to do.hope this helps

      Delete
    5. Thanks you guys cause it was confusing

      Delete
  6. I see my blog did not come up, need help to set it because I followed all the instruction and I did send the email.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello class I'm a little confused
    DO we have to choose a quote from what the professor wrote and posted above ? Do we have write three paragraphs and explain it in our own words ?

    Thank You

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. after reading all of the comments above I think katherine pena post is probably right

      Delete
  8. I'm not sure either about the homework either. I will be waiting for a response before I do anything

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am a little confused on the homework as well. To my understanding we were supposed to read the articles and "reflect" in our blog. Is this "quote assignment" a second assignment?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have added my assignment to my blog.
    Rudy74.blogspot.com
    My user name is: Rudylehman2017

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello,
    I posted my assignment my blog website is : http://frinnetruiz.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  12. “Sociologist Steven Lukes argues that there are “three dimensions of power”: the first being politically decisions (Dahl), the second is framing, or controlling what issues and policies are discussed (Bachrach and Bratz), but the third is the power to influence values or social norms, that is to control the basic ideas of right and wrong and what is considered good or bad. Luke argues it is ultimately what people consider to be right or wrong, or normal, that will influence what choices are available and what decisions are made”.

    Steven Lukes makes a couple of valid points when defining supremacy. Luke breaks down the word “power” in three parts which are all essential in defining what power really is. Individuals who are in control should be able to make smart political choices by addressing the concerns that affect citizens on their daily living. Luke also mentions that the alternatives and outcomes displayed by government authorities are based on the individuals customs and norms; “right, from wrong to normal”. Some examples that support this statement and mentioned in the txt are the issues of drugs, abortion and marriage within gays. Some topics were not “vital” to individuals before the 1970’s therefore; some conversations were excluded and not openly discussed as they are today. “Two faces of Power” by Bachrach and Baratz. Individuals, customs, norms, values and beliefs are the influential factors that will push people to fight for what they truly desire.

    I choose this particular quote because I personally feel that Steven Lukes strongly defines “power” compared to Dahl, Bachrach & Bratz. Luke provides a broader definition for control by including most components of authority. In the text power is defined in various ways by different socialist according to their own views. These definitions share the idea that power is a “socialist act”; therefore superior figures should be able to motivate individuals under their command to create the “idle” society that government officials foresee .I believe that influential people should be able to communicate effectively, model certain behavior, listen to their people and decide what is best for their citizens. The type of government that rules that particular society shouldn’t matter because the supervision should always try to acknowledge and serve their people.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hello,

    My blog has been posted at:
    https://aps-pol166.blogspot.com/?m=1

    ReplyDelete
  14. sorry for lateness, but I couldn't do it earlier
    My blog has been posted at:
    mathieu99.blogspot.com

    ReplyDelete