Sociological View Of Power Analysis

Power has many various interpretations in accordance to different people. Many philosophers have varying views of power and power is part of our everyday lives. The way in which one understands how power is used in a particular way varies. Power is ‘the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way’ or ‘the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events’. (Taylor) These definitions are valid but looking at it from a philosophy and sociological view, there are many different perceptions of power. It is clear from these definitions that power alone has many different variations from the situation that it finds itself in. Looking at power from a philosophers view such as Steven Lukes,

The second dimension is real power that a person can set an agenda, such as a chairperson who sets the agenda and does not run the risk of being challenged about a topic as they pick the topics to be discussed. Finally there is three dimensional power which has two aspects to it. Firstly there is the structural and cultural overt decisions that are made and secondly a ‘false consciousness’ which is a way of thinking that stops an individual or group from understanding the social situation they are in. There are many prime examples of three dimensional power - in the forms of famous cults, the so called ‘American dream’, the dominance of men in counties such as Afghanistan or even in the work environment in large factories where the owner instils a ‘false consciousness’ ideology into the employee’s way of work where the worker cannot see past the exploitation and oppression. There are so many problems attached to three dimensional power that even followers of cults or working class people are oblivious to. This is the main downfall of three dimensional power and this Marxist way of living has its

A false hope or consciousness is built up in its followers or working class people as they have the idea that they may be able to excel in life like their leader or boss, when in these cases this is not true. The owners or cult leaders have control and dominance over their followers. As Steven Lukes states in his book ‘Power: A Radical View’ - “A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B 's interests” (Lukes, Steven, p37). The fact that A has power over B and the way in which it is contrary to B’s needs is quite shady. It is inevitable that there will be problems attached to this type of power due to this fact alone. The followers cannot see past all the exploitation and have a belief that they may be able to excel in life and build their way up from the bottom like their leader/boss. They have a false hope of becoming bigger and better things when really this will never happen. Their real interests are not ‘real’ what so