What do you think?
Rate this book
Power: A Radical View
The second edition of this seminal work includes the original text, first published in 1974, alongside two major new chapters. Power: A Radical View assesses the main debates about how to conceptualize and study power, including the influential contributions of Michel Foucault. Power Revisited reconsiders Steven Lukes' own views in light of these debates and of criticisms of his original argument.
With a new introduction and bibliographical essay, this book has consolidated its reputation as a classic work and a major reference point within Social and Political Theory. It can be used on modules across the Social and Political Sciences dealing with the concept of power and its manifestation in the world. It is also essential reading for all undergraduate and postgraduates interested in the history of Social and Political Thought.
With a new introduction and bibliographical essay, this book has consolidated its reputation as a classic work and a major reference point within Social and Political Theory. It can be used on modules across the Social and Political Sciences dealing with the concept of power and its manifestation in the world. It is also essential reading for all undergraduate and postgraduates interested in the history of Social and Political Thought.
200 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1974
57 people are currently reading
1,364 people want to read
About the author
Steven Lukes
33Ìýbooks38ÌýfollowersSteven Michael Lukes is a political and social theorist. Currently he is a professor of politics and sociology at New York University. He was formerly a professor at the University of Siena, the European University Institute (Florence) and the London School of Economics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
March 27, 2025
Reading a review by Julie on a book on Power my mind, if not my body, was transported back to reading Politics at Uni. I believe this work had been published the year before I started.
Looks like he is a now a Professor in the US. So I wonder what he would be thinking of his concept of Ideological Power - his third dimension. Being able to influence people even against their self-interest.
Spooky. Especially my being able to pull that out of the bag…but not remember what my wife asked me to do 10 minutes ago😉
Looks like he is a now a Professor in the US. So I wonder what he would be thinking of his concept of Ideological Power - his third dimension. Being able to influence people even against their self-interest.
Spooky. Especially my being able to pull that out of the bag…but not remember what my wife asked me to do 10 minutes ago😉
August 25, 2013
This is one of the clearest, most eloquently written theoretical pieces on power I have read. Most books on power provide an exhausting amount of detail, most of which is background and critique. I understand why they do it, but it is not at all practical to read and apply such books in research like mine, which involves looking at over a dozen dimensions of institutionalised environments. This book contains some critique and background, but it really hones in on the important details and clearly outlines a "radical" theory of power. The view of power is not really that radical...perhaps it was more radical when this book was first published in 1974; in which case it is a testament to the theory that it seems completely reasonable to me today. Even though this book is short, it manages to address several pragmatic empirical issues that will arise in applying the author's favoured, 3-dimensional view of power in research. He doesn't solve them entirely, but his effort provides a useful foundation and illustrates the feasibility of the theory.
The book also doesn't rely on Foucault or Marx, which is an impressive and endearing attribute in the sea of literature that relies on one or both. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a primer and eloquent conceptual model of power, particularly if you find your eyes glaze over when you read the more lengthy tomes on the topic.
The book also doesn't rely on Foucault or Marx, which is an impressive and endearing attribute in the sea of literature that relies on one or both. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is looking for a primer and eloquent conceptual model of power, particularly if you find your eyes glaze over when you read the more lengthy tomes on the topic.
October 2, 2017
One-dimensional view of power: "when A causes B to act in a way different to how he otherwise would". Concentrates on observable (overt) conflict between political actors. Bias of the political system (?)
Two-dimensional view of power: aims to critique the bias of the first view. Examines decision-making and nondecision making - overt and covert conflict. Agenda setting.
Three-dimensional view of power: radical - supressing conflict before it can become latent in individuals or groups. (thought control. Must read Orwell's 1984) Case study: air pollution in Gary, Indiana - U.S. Steel company exerted power over the citizens and no one complained.
3rd dimensional view is "unfalsifiable" - how can one know if they are subject to thought control if all their thoughts are being supressed?
Difficulties with the 3rd dimension: 1) identifying relevant counterfactuals, 2) identifying the process or mechanism of an alleged exercise of power, 3) attributing an exercise of power to groups.
Two-dimensional view of power: aims to critique the bias of the first view. Examines decision-making and nondecision making - overt and covert conflict. Agenda setting.
Three-dimensional view of power: radical - supressing conflict before it can become latent in individuals or groups. (thought control. Must read Orwell's 1984) Case study: air pollution in Gary, Indiana - U.S. Steel company exerted power over the citizens and no one complained.
3rd dimensional view is "unfalsifiable" - how can one know if they are subject to thought control if all their thoughts are being supressed?
Difficulties with the 3rd dimension: 1) identifying relevant counterfactuals, 2) identifying the process or mechanism of an alleged exercise of power, 3) attributing an exercise of power to groups.
April 22, 2024
It was quite clear and I agree, in essence, with Lukes' main points. I think it was a valuable contribution to the field of power studies at the time, and this book has inspired me in my own research.
I am, however, withholding one star because of two reasons. First, one needs quite a bit of context to read and understand it. I had to brush up on the American tradition of political studies (since I'm mainly acquainted with European scholars) to completely understand this text. Secondly, I think it could be even more radical :)
I am, however, withholding one star because of two reasons. First, one needs quite a bit of context to read and understand it. I had to brush up on the American tradition of political studies (since I'm mainly acquainted with European scholars) to completely understand this text. Secondly, I think it could be even more radical :)
January 31, 2015
This book packs a lot of information and analysis into a short space and is probably worth reading carefully more than once. The main frustration with the book is that it is largely a critique of and engagement with the ideas an eclectic group of intellectuals from various nations, historical periods, and disciplines (sociology, economics, political science, philosophy, history, religion, etc.) and it can be hard to assess the quality of Lukes's arguments about these ideas if one is not instantly and thoroughly familiar with the thought of all of these individuals. However, the book was rather enjoyable once I got into and it has given me a lot to think about and research further.
April 25, 2021
Everyone has an idea of what power does or who holds power but defining what power actually is is a bit trickier. Steven Lukes' Power: A Radical View takes a good crack at the question.
Written concisely and clearly, Lukes explores views of power in three different dimensions (although I felt that the third-dimensional view was somewhat vaguely defined compared to the other two) along with a discussion of critiques of his original argument.
Occasionally dry but thought-provoking stuff.
Written concisely and clearly, Lukes explores views of power in three different dimensions (although I felt that the third-dimensional view was somewhat vaguely defined compared to the other two) along with a discussion of critiques of his original argument.
Occasionally dry but thought-provoking stuff.
November 29, 2021
Read it for my exam tomorrow, underlines simple concepts. Just wish there were more contemporary examples rather than 1960s to 1970s
Read
June 2, 2022not so radical
February 8, 2013
I enjoyed his discussion of power, however I didn't come away with really understanding what the third dimension really was. I think that Lukes does a good job of saying what it is not, but I didn't feel that his arguments were very compelling. I liked how he ripped apart Foucault though in his analysis of power. This is a very dense read. I think the book would have been better if it were printed in a different way: 1) the original text 2) the response to Lukes original work and what others had to say 3) then the rest of the book as it was printed. Just my two cents.
September 16, 2013
I wish there's more case analysis in relations to his theories and that if he could use simple/simpler language. Theories per se are interesting and well argued but doesn't really probe the origin or the history of such power that comes into place.
August 13, 2012
Not the most accessible read and in large parts I found it repetitive. However, the text does outline the key authors on the concept of power from the 1960s and 1970s.
Currently reading
October 25, 2012A very academic book that deconstructs the meaning of "power" and how it underlies policy making via decisions and non-decisions.
October 30, 2018
As concise as this book is, it does give a large variance of what "power" has been interpreted by various people throughout history and among different disciplines. That said, there's very little historical context for why each of these were published and the purposes they have been used for. As an edited text, this does little more than give an introduction to a series of chapters, articles, and notes of prominent power theorists which could have been Googled and curated in this way.
Something that strikes me as interesting is that there are no informationally centric theories here. Perhaps this is because power is dominantly seen as people centric, but this seems odd to me considering that several authors claim it is actually between people (namely Foucault and Arendt.)
Something that strikes me as interesting is that there are no informationally centric theories here. Perhaps this is because power is dominantly seen as people centric, but this seems odd to me considering that several authors claim it is actually between people (namely Foucault and Arendt.)
November 2, 2018
Of primary interest is the first two chapters. Beyond that, this book is mostly fluff. What this book does is attempt to synthesize some open questions and frame them in such a way that we see the open questions in theories of power, and suggest how closures can happen through empirical frameworks rather than through rational closures. Although this is believable, it is not quite as radical as the book suggests.
November 8, 2021
Before reading this book my perception of pluralism was very bias. Luke’s provides a clear understanding of definitions of power and the proposition of a three-dimensional view that unveils influence, authority, conflicts, inaction and unconsciousness
August 28, 2024
German conservatism sprinkled with modernism in a slog of 150 pages. Overly academic, boring to read, and much of the book seems filler for the publisher as opposed to core idea. You’re better off reading Schmitt and Fromm to at least enjoy the book and academic journey. The book seems pretty correct, though.
February 3, 2017
Rather complicated for a simple idea... But this 'radical' idea of power, and all other ideas and scholars in social sciences) used to support it, is worth it!
November 19, 2019
Lukes just keeps adding on power dimensions - while I appreciate his analysis - it makes me wonder if there's still a dimension missing and will continue to be added onto.
February 9, 2020
Nicely written and largely right. Takes a lot for me to give a non-fiction book 5 stars though.
March 13, 2020
It can be thought as a good introductory book on a subject that alarmingly lacks theoretical and comprehensive analysis.
February 11, 2021
Comprehensive work!
August 17, 2021
Academic book that tries to explain power. I wish there were more examples to support the three views of power Steven Lukes chalks out.
October 28, 2021
Desordenat. No arriba a cap conclusió final.
March 6, 2022
A disappointing read, which although was well referenced throughout, I felt was disjointed and difficult to read
July 24, 2023
Thanks to a fellow researcher, I've found this book which can explain well what the power actually is, including their bias according to person, authority, and social constructive.
September 17, 2023
I read this book for an independent study which I had to extend due to other reasons. This book was very interesting if quite dense at times. Idk who I would recommend it to though
October 23, 2013
Fair explanation of the several dimensions of power; fairly clear, fairly comprehensive. While reading it, I made a few notes addressing points with which I did or did not quite agree with the author. They are the following:
Language is the most important type of power. Mastering language is mastering the world. Language is power-creation, the inclusion or exclusion of certain words the most powerful act in politics.
Not the media create the largest influence on the electorate, nor does the political candidate do so, or the political actor - it is the voter himself, the individual, that chooses, that is predetermined to choose through genetic equipment and socialization, the issues which to emphasize; a voter that is often preoccupied with their own interests, having no time to survey the abundance of information on a statement, on a policy, voting for themselves, undertaking political action for what they have been socialized to pick and accept. There is a mutual relationship between the media and the consumer of media information in that the 'consumer' reinforces the media to produce certain knowledge by buying their information, thereby buying into the media outlets' socialization process. And as of late, the stressed and tired individual increasingly chooses short-cut, low-knowledge information.
According to the definition in which A makes B act in a way aiding the achievement of A's interests, the result of the American invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has been fully revived nationalism among the Middle Eastern population - despite the fact that these people are ruled by autocratic governors and may have wanted to protest their rulers; at least, it would have been in their interests to bring about change - was a form of power (B did something it wouldn't have done if A wouldn't have performed action x), yet it was not power because it was against A's interest, and very much so at that.
Selective perception and articulation of social problems and conflicts. Sports news and celebrity news often override news that is important to the interest of the citizen - but these interests may just as well be overridden by an emphasis on foreign affairs.
However, personal real interests may not be manifested by the increased egalitarianisation of Indian society due to universal suffrage - individuals often attempt to find their direct needs, not their long-term interests; and their interests are often defined in terms of power and money, which I do not find appealing as an end state, instead proposing the essential yet essentially unquantifyable interest of happiness over money and power.
The main problem with Lukes, however, is in the seemingly arbitrary boundaries of power. He supposes that power is intricately intertwined with interests, and keeps on posing actors A and B whereas influence, in whatever manner, would be an exertion of power - directionless as this may be, there is power exerted nonetheless. There is no such thing as the ability of supposition of 'what an individual or institution may have done had there not be a certain action x that influenced the actions' because institutional character, and especially the incredible power in language structures, are hardly taken into account. Power is defined as making a person or a group act against their own interests - but influence in the 'right' way is not power. This is too arbitrary on at least two grounds; firstly, because the determination of 'real interests' is hardly possible and cannot be solved by pointing out the influence of democratization on the class hierarchy in Indian societies, as it may have been in the interest of the eventual satisfaction of many to stay within the confines yet for their cravings for more power and higher social status; secondly, because power is all-pervasive and embedded in social structures but, more importantly, in language, every relationship is a power relationship and it is the relationships that need to be addressed, not the particular actions that do or do not coincide with personal or institutional interests.
Language is the most important type of power. Mastering language is mastering the world. Language is power-creation, the inclusion or exclusion of certain words the most powerful act in politics.
Not the media create the largest influence on the electorate, nor does the political candidate do so, or the political actor - it is the voter himself, the individual, that chooses, that is predetermined to choose through genetic equipment and socialization, the issues which to emphasize; a voter that is often preoccupied with their own interests, having no time to survey the abundance of information on a statement, on a policy, voting for themselves, undertaking political action for what they have been socialized to pick and accept. There is a mutual relationship between the media and the consumer of media information in that the 'consumer' reinforces the media to produce certain knowledge by buying their information, thereby buying into the media outlets' socialization process. And as of late, the stressed and tired individual increasingly chooses short-cut, low-knowledge information.
According to the definition in which A makes B act in a way aiding the achievement of A's interests, the result of the American invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has been fully revived nationalism among the Middle Eastern population - despite the fact that these people are ruled by autocratic governors and may have wanted to protest their rulers; at least, it would have been in their interests to bring about change - was a form of power (B did something it wouldn't have done if A wouldn't have performed action x), yet it was not power because it was against A's interest, and very much so at that.
Selective perception and articulation of social problems and conflicts. Sports news and celebrity news often override news that is important to the interest of the citizen - but these interests may just as well be overridden by an emphasis on foreign affairs.
However, personal real interests may not be manifested by the increased egalitarianisation of Indian society due to universal suffrage - individuals often attempt to find their direct needs, not their long-term interests; and their interests are often defined in terms of power and money, which I do not find appealing as an end state, instead proposing the essential yet essentially unquantifyable interest of happiness over money and power.
The main problem with Lukes, however, is in the seemingly arbitrary boundaries of power. He supposes that power is intricately intertwined with interests, and keeps on posing actors A and B whereas influence, in whatever manner, would be an exertion of power - directionless as this may be, there is power exerted nonetheless. There is no such thing as the ability of supposition of 'what an individual or institution may have done had there not be a certain action x that influenced the actions' because institutional character, and especially the incredible power in language structures, are hardly taken into account. Power is defined as making a person or a group act against their own interests - but influence in the 'right' way is not power. This is too arbitrary on at least two grounds; firstly, because the determination of 'real interests' is hardly possible and cannot be solved by pointing out the influence of democratization on the class hierarchy in Indian societies, as it may have been in the interest of the eventual satisfaction of many to stay within the confines yet for their cravings for more power and higher social status; secondly, because power is all-pervasive and embedded in social structures but, more importantly, in language, every relationship is a power relationship and it is the relationships that need to be addressed, not the particular actions that do or do not coincide with personal or institutional interests.
January 31, 2016
This is a 'mini-classic,' hence it gets the 5 stars usually reserved for classics. It is a concise book of about 150 pages that delves into a develops and deconstructs grand, sweeping ideas - another 'pocket manual' from this author on major concepts.
Highly theoretical but mostly accessible, the book asserts that the concept of power has to be looked at in 'three dimensions.' It is not enough to say that 'A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.' That is the one-dimensional view. Likewise, even the two-dimensional conception is inadequate: '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.' Rather, in 3-D, power can be described thus: 'A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants. Indeed, is it not the supreme exercise of power to get another or others to have the desires you want them to have - that is, to secure their compliance by controlling their thoughts and desires? One does not have to go to the lengths of talking about 'Brave New World,' or the world of B. F. Skinner, to see this: thought control takes many less total and more mundane forms, through the control of information, through the mass media and through the process of socialization.'
It is hard to argue with this notion, although some scholars have, and the author addresses his critics in later editions of his book. He does so very deftly. He also covers a range of ideological strands in the scholarly debate over power, incorporating the views of Spinoza, Marx, Gramsci, Lukacs, Bourdieu and several others in his discussion. Well worth the time to read.
Highly theoretical but mostly accessible, the book asserts that the concept of power has to be looked at in 'three dimensions.' It is not enough to say that 'A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.' That is the one-dimensional view. Likewise, even the two-dimensional conception is inadequate: '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.' Rather, in 3-D, power can be described thus: 'A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants. Indeed, is it not the supreme exercise of power to get another or others to have the desires you want them to have - that is, to secure their compliance by controlling their thoughts and desires? One does not have to go to the lengths of talking about 'Brave New World,' or the world of B. F. Skinner, to see this: thought control takes many less total and more mundane forms, through the control of information, through the mass media and through the process of socialization.'
It is hard to argue with this notion, although some scholars have, and the author addresses his critics in later editions of his book. He does so very deftly. He also covers a range of ideological strands in the scholarly debate over power, incorporating the views of Spinoza, Marx, Gramsci, Lukacs, Bourdieu and several others in his discussion. Well worth the time to read.
February 3, 2012
A brief and extremely helpful introduction to the topic of power, and specifically the sociology of power in a political context. My own area of interest is specifically the study of religious conversion from Islam to Christianity and there is much to help here in this book. The author analyzes how power is not only exercised in overt, positive actions, but how power can also be exercised by not allowing issues to surface for open discussion, or even by not allowing a group to learn of a possible interest. That is actually very applicable to the topic of conversion from Islam to Christianity. In the last decades the Internet, the rise of migration and satellite TV (and other things as well) have all made the Christian message available as a live option to Muslims both within and outside of the Muslim world. Previously the political and religious authorities were able to use their power to stymie knowledge of the possibility of becoming Christian (a potential interest for people not satisfied with Islam for whatever reason). That has changed. Lukes' work gives us a helpful and well-informed framework for analyzing these changes.
April 2, 2021
Though this may be valuable in certain contexts, it is essential to note that this book represents an individual's summarization of other's argument to male a point; of which Lukes arrives at in an incredibly indirect and distracted manor. If one happens to be familiar with the readings and ideologies Lukes brings into play, I can see this as an extremely useful resource; however, in a setting (like mine) where this writing appears to attempt to replace a deep familiarity with authors like Arendt, Foucault, Bordeaux, Marx, etcetera, much is left to be desired. I wish that rather than reading this book, I was pushed toward and urged to read the foundational texts of these authors.
PS,
I also find the writing style excessively tumultuous with little to gain from it.
PS,
I also find the writing style excessively tumultuous with little to gain from it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.