Changes

=== Normative faces of power debate ===

=== Normative faces of power debate ===

The faces of power debate has coalesced into a viable conception of three dimensions of power including ''decision-making'', ''agenda-setting'', and ''preference-shaping''.  The decision-making dimension was first put forth by [[Robert Dahl]], who advocated the notion that political power is based in the formal political arena and is measured through voting patterns and the decisions made by politicians.<ref>Dahl, Robert A., ''Who Governs? : Democracy and Power in the American City'', (Yale University Press, 1961) This view has been criticised by many as simplistic, notably by the sociologist [[G. William Domhoff]],[[G.William Domhoff|Domhoff]], G. William, [http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/new_haven.html Who Really Ruled in Dahl's New Haven?] who argues that political and economic power is monopolised by the "elite classes".

The faces of power debate has coalesced into a viable conception of three dimensions of power including ''decision-making'', ''agenda-setting'', and ''preference-shaping''.  The decision-making dimension was first put forth by [[Robert Dahl]], who advocated the notion that political power is based in the formal political arena and is measured through voting patterns and the decisions made by politicians. Dahl, Robert A., ''Who Governs? : Democracy and Power in the American City'', (Yale University Press, 1961) This view has been criticised by many as simplistic, notably by the sociologist [[G. William Domhoff]],[[G.William Domhoff|Domhoff]], G. William, [http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/new_haven.html Who Really Ruled in Dahl's New Haven?] who argues that political and economic power is monopolised by the "elite classes".

A second dimension to the notion of political power was added by academics Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz involving "agenda-setting".  Bachrach and Baratz viewed power as involving both the formal political arena and behind the scenes agenda-setting by elite groups who could be either politicians and/or others (such as industrialists, campaign contributors, special interest groups and so on), often with a hidden agenda that most of the public may not be aware of.  The third dimension of power was added by British academic [[Steven Lukes]] who felt that even with this second dimension, some other traits of political power needed to be addressed through the concept of 'preference-shaping'. Lukes developed the concept of the "Three faces of power" - decision-making power, non-decision-making power, and [[ideology|ideological]] power. Lukes, Steven, ''Power: a Radical View'', [[Macmillan Publishers|Macmillan]], ([[1974]])

A second dimension to the notion of political power was added by academics Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz involving "agenda-setting".  Bachrach and Baratz viewed power as involving both the formal political arena and behind the scenes agenda-setting by elite groups who could be either politicians and/or others (such as industrialists, campaign contributors, special interest groups and so on), often with a hidden agenda that most of the public may not be aware of.  The third dimension of power was added by British academic [[Steven Lukes]] who felt that even with this second dimension, some other traits of political power needed to be addressed through the concept of 'preference-shaping'. Lukes developed the concept of the "Three faces of power" - decision-making power, non-decision-making power, and [[ideology|ideological]] power. Lukes, Steven, ''Power: a Radical View'', [[Macmillan Publishers|Macmillan]], ([[1974]])