Encyclopedia of Power

(1)

(2)

Encyclopedia of

(3)

Editorial Board

Editor

Keith Dowding

Australian National University

Advisory Board

David A. Baldwin Princeton University Susan Fiske Princeton University Mark Haugaard National University of Ireland,

Galway

Nicholas R. Miller

University of Maryland, Baltimore County David L. Swartz

(4)

Encyclopedia of

Keith Dowding

Edited by

POWER

Australian National University

(5)

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Encyclopedia of power/edited by Keith Dowding.

p. cm. — (A SAGE reference publication) Includes index.

ISBN 978-1-4129-2748-2 (cloth : acid-free paper)

1. Power (Social sciences)—Encyclopedias. I. Dowding, Keith M. HN49.P6E53 2011 303.303—dc22 2010032325 11 12 13 14 15 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 -6905-694(;065! :(.,7\ISPJH[PVUZ0UJ ;LSSLY9VHK ;OV\ZHUK6HRZ*HSPMVYUPH ,THPS!VYKLY'ZHNLW\IJVT :(.,7\ISPJH[PVUZ3[K 6SP]LY»Z@HYK *P[`9VHK 3VUKVU,*@:7 <UP[LK2PUNKVT :(.,7\ISPJH[PVUZ0UKPH7][3[K )04VOHU*VVWLYH[P]L0UK\Z[YPHS(YLH 4H[O\YH9VHK5L^+LSOP 0UKPH :(.,7\ISPJH[PVUZ(ZPH7HJPÄJ7[L3[K 7LRPU:[YLL[ -HY,HZ[:X\HYL :PUNHWVYL 7\ISPZOLY! 9VSM(1HURL (ZZPZ[HU[[V[OL7\ISPZOLY! 4PJOLSL;OVTWZVU (JX\PZP[PVUZ,KP[VY! 3\J`9VIPUZVU +L]LSVWTLU[HS,KP[VYZ! +PHUH,(_LSZLU:HUMVYK9VIPUZVU 9LMLYLUJL:`Z[LTZ4HUHNLY! 3L[PJPH4.\[PLYYLa 9LMLYLUJL:`Z[LTZ*VVYKPUH[VY! 3H\YH5V[[VU 7YVK\J[PVU,KP[VY! 2H[L:JOYVLKLY *VW`LKP[VYZ! (SHU1*VVR9VIPU.VSK ;`WLZL[[LY! * 4+PNP[HSZ73[K 7YVVMYLHKLY! 2YPZ[PU)LYNZ[HK 0UKL_LY! 1VHU:OHWPYV *V]LY+LZPNULY! ,KNHY(IHYJH

(6)

List of Entries

A Priori Unions. See Owen Value Ability Ableness Absolutism Adler, Alfred Adorno, Theodor Adverse Selection Agency Agency–Structure Problem Agenda Power Agenda Setters Alliances Althusser, Louis Anarchism, Power in Anarchy in International Relations

Animal Groups, Power in Apparatus. See Dispositif Appeasement Arendt, Hannah Argument, Power of Aristotle Arms Race Authoritarian Personality Authority Autonomy

Autonomy of the State. See Relative Autonomy of the State

Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton

Bakunin, Mikhail Balance of Power Banks

Banzhaf. See Banzhaf Voting Power Measure

Banzhaf Value

Banzhaf Voting Power Measure Bargaining Bargaining in International Relations Barry, Brian Bases of Power Bicameral Legislature Biopower Blackmail Blocking Coalition Bourdieu, Pierre Bribe Index Budget-Maximizing Bureaucrats Bull, Hedley

Bureaucracy. See Bureaucratic Power

Bureaucratic Power Business and Power

Cabal Capability Capital, Marxist Capital, Neoclassical

Capture Theory of Regulation Carr, E. H.

Cartwright, Dorwin Caste System (India) Castells, Manuel

Causal Theories of Power Causation

Central Intelligence Agency Chicken Games

Civil War

Clausewitz, Carl von Clegg, Stewart Coalition Theory Coercion, Analytic Coercion and Power

Coleman, James S. Coleman Index

Collective Action Problem Collective Goods. See Public

Goods

Community Power Debate Complex Equality (Walzer) Compliance (International) Computer Algorithms for

Power Indices

Consensual Power, Theories of Consent

Constructivist View of Power in International Relations Control Conventional Deterrence Cooperation Coordination Core of a Game Core Parties Corporatism Corruption Coup d’État Cox, Robert W. Critical Theory Cuban Missile Crisis

Dahl, Robert A.

Decentering (of Subject, of Structure) Defensive Realism Deflected Wants Deliberation Deliberative Democracy Democracy Dependency Theory in International Relations Determinacy Determinism

(9)

viii List of Entries Deterrence Theory Deterrent Threats Deutsch, Karl Dictatorship Diplomacy Discipline Discourse Dispositif Distributive Justice Domain Domhoff, G. William Dominant Parties Domination Dowding, Keith Eagly, Alice e-Governance Elections Elite Theories Empire Entrepreneurs Environmental Treaties Espionage

Essentially Contested Concept Exchange Theory

Exclusion Executive Power Exercise Fallacy

Exit and Voice as Forms of Power Expectancy Confirmation, Power and Exploitation Extended Deterrence Fair Division False Consciousness Fascism Fear, Use of Federal Structure Felsenthal, Dan S.

Female Leadership Among Mammals

Feminist International Relations, View of Power Feminist Theories of Power First-Strike Capability Fiske, Susan Flyvbjerg, Bent Foucault, Michel Framing Free Market

Free Rider. See Collective Action Problem

Free Will Freedom

French, John R. P., Jr

Fungibility of Power Resources

Game Forms, Power in

Game-Theoretical Approaches to Power

Gender, Role of Power in Giddens, Anthony

Global Cities. See World Cities Global Governance Globalization Governmentality Gramsci, Antonio Grand Coalition Granovetter, Mark Groupthink Growth Coalitions

Growth Machine. See Growth Coalitions Gunboat Diplomacy Habermas, Jürgen Habitus Hall, Judith A. Harsanyi, John C. Haugaard, Mark Hegemonic Power Hegemonic War Hegemony Heresthetics

Heterosexism, Role of Power in Hierarchy

Hobbes, Thomas Holler, Manfred

Homogeneous Weighted Majority Games

Human Dominance Motivation Hunter, Floyd Idealism in International Relations Ideas Ideology Imperial Power Imperialism Influence Intelligence Interdependence Theory Interests

Internet and Power Invisible Hand I-Power

Jessop, Bob Jost, John

Jursidictions and Structure-Induced Equilibria Justice

Knowledge and Power Kropotkin, Peter

Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe, Chantal

Language and Power Lasswell, Harold Leadership

Leadership and Gender League of Nations Legislative Power Legitimation

Lewin, Kurt, and Power Liberalism Loyalty Luck Luck, Brute Luhmann, Niklas Lukes, Steven Machiavelli, Niccolò Machine. See Dispositif Machover, Moshé Manipulation Mann, Michael

Martin. See Martin Index Martin Index

Marx, Karl

Marxist Accounts of Power McClelland, David Mechanisms Media, The Michels, Robert Miliband, Ralph Miliband–Poulantzas Debate

(10)

ix List of Entries

Military in Government Mills, C. Wright

Minimal Winning Coalition Mobilization of Bias Monopoly Power Moral Hazard Morgenthau, Hans J. Morriss, Peter Multinational Corporations Mutually Assured Destruction

Nash Equilibrium Nationalism Neocorporatism. See Corporatism Neoliberalism Neorealism Networks, Power in

Networks and Communities Nietzsche, Friedrich

Non Decision Making Noncooperative Games

Nonverbal Communication and Power

Offense/Defense Dominance Offensive Realism. See

Defensive Realism Opportunity

Organization of the State Owen Value

Paradox of New Members Parsons, Talcott

Parties, Policy-Seeking Versus Power-Seeking

Parties, Strong and Very Strong Paternalism

Penrose Voting Power Measure Perceptual Symbols of Power Persuasion Pivot Player Pivotal Politics Pluralism Police State Policy Entrepreneurs Political Entrepreneurs. See

Policy Entrepreneurs Political Legitimacy Political Parties

Political Thinking as Power Post-Fordism

Postmodernist View of Power in International Relations Poulantzas, Nicos

Power, Cognition, and Behavior

Power as Control Theory Power as Influence. See I-Power Power as Prize. See P-Power Power Elite

Power Indices Power Laws Power Motive

Power To and Power Over Power to Initiate Action and

Power to Prevent Action Power Transition Theory Power With

P-Power

Preference Versus Nonpreference-Based Concepts

Prime Ministerial and Presidential

Principal–Agent Relationship Prisoner’s Dilemma

Propaganda

Proper Simple Game

Psychological Empowerment Public Goods

Public Goods Index

Qualified Majority Voting Quarreling Paradox Queer Theories of Power

Racism, Role of Power in Rationality

Raven, Bertram

Realism in International Relations

Realist Accounts of Power Referendums

Regime Theory in International Relations

Regime Theory in Urban Politics

Relational Power

Relative Autonomy of the State

Religious Power Reputational Analysis

Resources as Measuring Power Responsibility

Revolution

Revolutionary Cell Structure Rhetoric Right-Wing Authoritarianism Riker, William H. Riots Sabatier, Paul Scope Scott, James Sea Power

Second Dimension. See Second Face

Second Face Security

Security Dilemma Separation of Powers Sexism, Role of Power in Shapley Value

Shapley–Shubik Index Shareholder Voting Power Simple Games

Small Worlds, Power in Social Breakdown Social Capital

Social Dominance Theory Social Exchange Theory. See

Exchange Theory Social Power Sovereignty

Spatial Voting Analysis Spence, Janet

Spiral Model Sprout, Harold Square Root Rules Status

Strategic Interaction in International Relations Strategic Power Index Strength of Weak Links. See

Strength of Weak Ties Strength of Weak Ties Striving for Superiority Structural Power Structural Suggestion Structuration

(11)

x List of Entries Structure-Induced Equilibrium Submissive Subordination Substructure and Superstructure

Swing Player. See Ability Symbolic Power and Violence System Justification Theory Systematic Luck

Systemic Power

Terror Regimes Terrorism

Testosterone, Power and Third Dimension. See Third

Face Third Face Threats

Three Faces of Power

Throffers Tijs Value Totalitarianism Trade Transactional and Transformational Leadership Transnational Corporations. See Multinational Corporations Trust Unicameral Legislature Unintended Consequences U.S. Electoral College, Power

in Value of a Game Variable-Sum Games Vehicle Fallacy Veiled Women Veto Players Veto Power Vote-Maximizing Parties Voting Voting Paradoxes Voting Power Waltz, Kenneth War Weber, Max

Weighted Majority Game Weighted Voting

Wight, Martin Will to Power Wolfers, Arnold

Women as Political Leaders World Cities

(12)

xi

Reader’s Guide

Biography Adler, Alfred Adorno, Theodor Althusser, Louis Arendt, Hannah Aristotle

Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton Bakunin, Mikhail Barry, Brian Bourdieu, Pierre Bull, Hedley Carr, E. H. Cartwright, Dorwin Castells, Manuel Clausewitz, Carl von Clegg, Stewart Coleman, James S. Cox, Robert W. Dahl, Robert A. Deutsch, Karl Domhoff, G. William Dowding, Keith Eagly, Alice Felsenthal, Dan S. Fiske, Susan Flyvbjerg, Bent Foucault, Michel French, John R. P., Jr. Giddens, Anthony Gramsci, Antonio Granovetter, Mark Habermas, Jürgen Hall, Judith A. Harsanyi, John C. Haugaard, Mark Hobbes, Thomas Holler, Manfred Hunter, Floyd Jessop, Bob Jost, John Kropotkin, Peter

Lasswell, Harold Lewin, Kurt, and Power Luhmann, Niklas Lukes, Steven Machiavelli, Niccolò Machover, Moshé Mann, Michael Marx, Karl McClelland, David Michels, Robert Miliband, Ralph Mills, C. Wright Morgenthau, Hans J. Morriss, Peter Nietzsche, Friedrich Parsons, Talcott Poulantzas, Nicos Raven, Bertram Riker, William H. Sabatier, Paul Scott, James Spence, Janet Sprout, Harold Waltz, Kenneth Weber, Max Wight, Martin Wolfers, Arnold Wright, Quincy

Concepts Related to Power Ability Ableness Absolutism Adverse Selection Agency Agenda Power Agenda Setters Argument, Power of Authority Autonomy Bargaining Blackmail Bureaucratic Power Cabal Capability Capital, Marxist Causation Coercion, Analytic Coercion and Power Collective Action

Problem

Complex Equality (Walzer) Consent

Control Cooperation Coordination Corruption

Decentering (of Subject, of Structure) Deflected Wants Deliberation Determinacy Determinism Discipline Discourse Dispositif Domain Domination Entrepreneurs Exclusion Exercise Fallacy

Exit and Voice as Forms of Power

(13)

xii Reader’s Guide Expectancy Confirmation, Power and Exploitation Fair Division False Consciousness Fear, Use of

Female Leadership Among Mammals Free Market Free Will Freedom Governmentality Habitus Hegemony Hierarchy Ideas Ideology Influence Interests Invisible Hand Leadership Legitimation Loyalty Luck Luck, Brute Manipulation Mechanisms Mobilization of Bias Moral Hazard

Networks and Communities Nonverbal Communication and

Power Opportunity

Perceptual Symbols of Power Persuasion

Pluralism

Policy Entrepreneurs Political Thinking as Power Power Elite

Power Motive Propaganda Public Goods

Racism, Role of Power in Rationality

Relative Autonomy of the State Responsibility Rhetoric Scope Second Face Social Capital Subjugation Submissive Subordination Systematic Luck Systemic Power Third Face Threats Throffers Trade Trust Unintended Consequences Vehicle Fallacy Will to Power

Decisions and Game Theory Agenda Power

Agenda Setters Banzhaf Value

Banzhaf Voting Power Measure Bargaining Blocking Coalition Bribe Index Chicken Games Coalition Theory Coleman, James S. Coleman Index

Computer Algorithms for Power Indices

Core of a Game Dowding, Keith Fair Division Felsenthal, Dan S. Game Forms, Power in Game-Theoretical Approaches to Power Grand Coalition Gunboat Diplomacy Harsanyi, John C. Holler, Manfred Homogeneous Weighted Majority Games I-Power Jurisdictions and Structure-Induced Equilibria Machover, Moshé Martin Index

Minimal Winning Coalition Mutually Assured Destruction Non Decision Making

Noncooperative Games Owen Value

Paradox of New Members

Parties, Policy-Seeking Versus Power-Seeking

Penrose Voting Power Measure Pivot Player

Power Indices Power Laws

Power to Initiate Action and Power to Prevent Action P-Power

Preference Versus Nonpreference-Based Concepts

Proper Simple Game Public Goods Index Qualified Majority Voting Quarreling Paradox Shapley Value

Shapley–Shubik Index Shareholder Voting Power Simple Games

Small Worlds, Power in Spatial Voting Analysis Square Root Rules Strategic Power Index Tijs Value

U.S. Electoral College, Power in Value of a Game Variable-Sum Games Veto Players Veto Power Voting Paradoxes Voting Power

Weighted Majority Game Weighted Voting Institutional Issues Agenda Power Agenda Setters Bicameral Legislature Budget-Maximizing Bureaucrats Bureaucratic Power Capture Theory of Regulation

Central Intelligence Agency Corporatism

Dominant Parties e-Governance Elections

Federal Structure Internet and Power

(14)

xiii Reader’s Guide

Leadership Media, The

Organization of the State Political Parties

Prime Ministerial and Presidential Principal–Agent Relationship Prisoner’s Dilemma Referendums Structure-Induced Equilibrium Unicameral Legislature

U.S. Electoral College, Power in

International Relations Alliances Anarchy in International Relations Appeasement Arms Race Balance of Power Banks Bargaining in International Relations Bull, Hedley Carr, E. H. Cartwright, Dorwin Chicken Games Civil War

Clausewitz, Carl von Compliance (International) Constructivist View of Power

in International Relations Conventional Deterrence Cox, Robert W.

Cuban Missile Crisis Defensive Realism Dependency Theory in International Relations Deterrence Theory Deterrent Threats Deutsch, Karl Diplomacy Empire Environmental Treaties Espionage Executive Power Extended Deterrence Feminist International

Relations, View of Power First-Strike Capability Gunboat Diplomacy Hegemonic Power Hegemonic War Hegemony Idealism in International Relations Imperial Power Imperialism Intelligence Lasswell, Harold League of Nations Military in Government Morgenthau, Hans J. Multinational Corporations Mutually Assured Destruction Neoliberalism

Neorealism

Offense/Defense Dominance Postmodernist View of Power

in International Relations Power Transition Theory Realism in International

Relations

Regime Theory in International Relations Sea Power Security Security Dilemma Separation of Powers Sovereignty Spiral Model Sprout, Harold Strategic Interaction in International Relations Terror Regimes Terrorism Waltz, Kenneth War Wight, Martin Wolfers, Arnold Wright, Quincy Interpersonal Relationships Agency–Structure Problem Authority

Caste System (India) Chicken Games

Deliberative Democracy Gender, Role of Power in Heterosexism, Role of Power in

Hierarchy

Interdependence Theory Leadership and Gender Power as Control Theory Psychological Empowerment Submissive Veiled Women Intrapersonal Matters Agency Agency–Structure Problem Autonomy Bases of Power Free Will

Gender, Role of Power in Interdependence Theory Leadership and Gender Psychological Empowerment Submissive

Key Debates

Agency–Structure Problem Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz,

Morton Barry, Brian Bourdieu, Pierre

Community Power Debate Consensual Power, Theories of Critical Theory Dahl, Robert A. Defensive Realism Deliberative Democracy Dependency Theory in International Relations Discourse Domhoff, G. William Domination Dowding, Keith Elite Theories

Essentially Contested Concept Free Will Freedom Global Governance Hunter, Floyd Liberalism Luck Miliband, Ralph Miliband–Poulantzas Debate Mills, C. Wright

(15)

xiv Reader’s Guide

Mobilization of Bias Neoliberalism Neorealism

Non Decision Making Organization of the State Pluralism

Postmodernist View of Power in International Relations Poulantzas, Nicos

Power as Control Theory Power Elite

Power To and Power Over Psychological Empowerment Queer Theories of Power Rationality

Realism in International Relations

Regime Theory in International Relations

Relative Autonomy of the State Resources as Measuring Power Second Face

Social Dominance Theory Spiral Model

Structural Power Structural Suggestion Structuration

Three Faces of Power Transactional and

Transformational Leadership

Methodological Issues Adverse Selection

Agency–Structure Problem Community Power Debate Essentially Contested Concept Exercise Fallacy

False Consciousness

Fungibility of Power Resources Mechanisms Pluralism Power Elite Power Laws Preference Versus Nonpreference-Based Concepts Principal–Agent Relationship Rationality Realism in International Relations

Realist Accounts of Power Reputational Analysis

Resources as Measuring Power Systematic Luck

Third Face

Political Science Agenda Power Agenda Setters Authority Banzhaf Value Bicameral Legislature Budget-Maximizing Bureaucrats Bureaucratic Power Business and Power Capital, Marxist Capital, Neoclassical

Capture Theory of Regulation Central Intelligence Agency Civil War

Coalition Theory

Collective Action Problem Community Power Debate Core Parties Corporatism Coup d’État Dahl, Robert A. Democracy Dictatorship Dominant Parties Dowding, Keith e-Governance Elections Executive Power Fascism Federal Structure Global Governance Globalization Governmentality Grand Coalition Growth Coalitions Heresthetics Hierarchy Hunter, Floyd Intelligence

Internet and Power

Jursidictions and Structure-Induced Equilibria Lasswell, Harold Leadership Legislative Power Liberalism Lukes, Steven Martin Index McClelland, David Michels, Robert Military in Government Mills, C. Wright

Minimal Winning Coalition Morris, Peter

Nationalism

Organization of the State Parties, Policy-Seeking Versus

Power-Seeking

Parties, Strong and Very Strong Pivotal Politics Pluralism Police State Policy Entrepreneurs Political Parties Post-Fordism Power Elite

Power To and Power Over Prime Ministerial and

Presidential

Principal–Agent Relationship Realist Accounts of Power Referendums

Relative Autonomy of the State

Revolution

Revolutionary Cell Structure Right-Wing Authoritarianism Riker, William H. Riots Second Face Social Capital Social Power

Spatial Voting Analysis Structural Power Structural Suggestion Structure-Induced Equilibrium Terror Regimes Terrorism

Testosterone, Power and Totalitarianism

(16)

xv Reader’s Guide

Unicameral Legislature

U.S. Electoral College, Power in

Veiled Women Veto Players Vote-Maximizing Parties Voting Voting Paradoxes Voting Power Weber, Max Weighted Voting

Women as Political Leaders

Political Theory Agency–Structure Problem Anarchism, Power in Authority Barry, Brian Bourdieu, Pierre Capital, Marxist Capital, Neoclassical Castells, Manuel Deliberative Democracy Democracy Dispositif Distributive Justice Domhoff, G. William Dowding, Keith Freedom Global Governance Globalization Governmentality Gramsci, Antonio Habermas, Jürgen Hobbes, Thomas Hunter, Floyd Jessop, Bob Justice Liberalism Lukes, Steven Macchiavelli, Niccolò Marx, Karl Michels, Robert Miliband, Ralph Mills, C. Wright Morriss, Peter Nationalism Nietzsche, Friedrich Paternalism Pluralism Political Legitimacy Post-Fordism Poulantzas, Nicos Power Elite

Power To and Power Over Power With Sabatier, Paul Scott, James Second Face Social Capital Social Power Sovereignty Structural Power Structural Suggestion Will to Power Social Psychology Adler, Alfred Authoritarian Personality Bases of Power Deflected Wants Eagly, Alice Expectancy Confirmation, Power and Fiske, Susan Framing French, John R. P., Jr. Granovetter, Mark Groupthink Hall, Judith A. Human Dominance Motivation Interdependence Theory Jost, John

Lewin, Kurt, and Power Power, Cognition, and

Behavior

Power as Control Theory Power Motive

Psychological Empowerment Rationality

Raven, Bertram

Social Dominance Theory Status

Striving for Superiority System Justification Theory Transactional and Transformational Leadership Social Theory Agency Agency–Structure Problem Biopower

Caste System (India) Clegg, Stewart

Decentering (of Subject, of Structure) Deliberation Flyvbjerg, Bent Foucault, Michel Free Will Giddens, Anthony Governmentality Groupthink Habermas, Jürgen Habitus Haugaard, Mark Jessop, Bob Luhmann, Niklas Lukes, Steven Mann, Michael Michels, Robert Miliband, Ralph Mills, C. Wright Morriss, Peter Nationalism Parsons, Talcott

Perceptual Symbols of Power Post-Fordism

Propaganda Rationality

Realist Accounts of Power Revolution

Rhetoric

Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scott, James

Second Face

Small Worlds, Power in Social Breakdown Social Capital Substructure and

Superstructure Status

Strength of Weak Ties Structural Power Structural Suggestion Structuration Subjugation Trust Veiled Women

(17)

xvi Reader’s Guide

Weber, Max Will to Power

Theories of Power Animal Groups, Power in Causal Theories of Power Coercion and Power Collective Action Problem Community Power Debate Elite Theories

Exchange Theory Feminist International

Relations, View of Power Feminist Theories of Power Marxist Accounts of Power Neoliberalism

Neorealism Post-Fordism

Postmodernist View of Power in International Relations Power as Control Theory Power To and Power Over Queer Theories of Power Realism in International

Relations

Realist Accounts of Power Relational Power

Social Power

Striving for Superiority System Justification Theory Third Face

Types of Power

Animal Groups, Power in Consensual Power,

Theories of

Constructivist View of Power in International Relations Critical Theory Defensive Realism Deterrence Theory Elite Theories Exercise Fallacy Exploitation False Consciousness

Female Leadership Among Mammals

Fungibility of Power Resources Hegemonic Power

Hegemony

Heterosexism, Role of Power in

Human Dominance Motivation Ideology

Imperial Power Influence Invisible Hand

Knowledge and Power Language and Power Legislative Power Manipulation Media, The Military in Government Mobilization of Bias Monopoly Power Networks, Power in

Networks and Communities Nonverbal Communication and

Power

Perceptual Symbols of Power Persuasion

Pluralism Police State

Political Thinking as Power Power, Cognition, and

Behavior

Power as Control Theory Power Motive

Power To and Power Over Power Transition Theory Power With

Prime Ministerial and Presidential

Propaganda

Psychological Empowerment Regime Theory in International

Relations Relational Power

Relative Autonomy of the State Religious Power

Revolutionary Cell Structure Rhetoric

Sea Power

Second Face

Sexism, Role of Power in Social Capital

Social Dominance Theory Social Power

Striving for Superiority Subjugation

Symbolic Power and Violence Systematic Luck

Systemic Power Terrorism

Testosterone, Power and Third Face

Threats

Three Faces of Power Throffers Transactional and Transformational Leadership Will to Power Urban Studies

Bachrach, Peter, and Baratz, Morton

Castells, Manuel

Community Power Debate Dahl, Robert A. Domhoff, G. William Dowding, Keith Elite Theories Flyvbjerg, Bent Growth Coalitions Hunter, Floyd Lukes, Steven Mobilization of Bias Non Decision Making Pluralism

Post-Fordism Power Elite

Sabatier, Paul Systematic Luck Systemic Power Third Face

Three Faces of Power World Cities

(18)

xvii

About the Editor

Keith Dowding is Professor of Political Science in

the School of Political Science and International Relations, Research School of Social Science, and Director of Research for the College of Arts and Social Science at the Australian National University. He has published extensively in political science, political philosophy, social choice theory, public administration, public policy, and urban politics in journals such as American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, British Journal of Political Science, European Journal of Political Research, Journal of Politics, Public Choice, Public Administration, Rationality

and Society, and Urban Studies Quarterly. He has published two books, Rational Choice and Political Power (1991) and Power (1996), and many articles on the subject of political power. He is on the boards of the Journal of Power and British Politics. In 2009, he coedited the four-volume Rational Choice Classics for SAGE as well as The Selection of Ministers in Europe for Routledge, published under the auspices of the network of scholars Selection and De-Selection of Political Elites (SEDEPE), which he chairs. He has been coeditor of the Journal of Theoretical Politics since 1996.

(19)

(20)

xix

Contributors

Kate Allison

University of Manchester André Azevedo Alves

London School of Economics and Political Science Joseph Angolano

London School of Economics and Political Science Andreas Antoniades University of Sussex Stuart Astill

London School of Economics and Political Science David A. Baldwin Princeton University Alex Bavister-Gould University of York Coral Bell

Australian National University Jennifer L. Berdahl

University of Toronto Cesarino Bertini University of Bergamo Malgorzata Olimpia Bielenia Technical University of Gdansk Tanja A. Börzel

Freie Universität, Berlin William Bosworth

Australian National University Matthew Braham

University of Groningen Steven J. Brams

New York University

John Breuilly

London School of Economics and Political Science Ian Carter

University of Pavia Philip G. Cerny Rutgers University Zsuzsanna Chappell

London School of Economics and Political Science Brian D. Christens University of Wisconsin– Madison Philip Cunliffe University of Kent Douglas J. Dallier

Western Carolina University Michael Dalvean

Australian National University Philip H. J. Davies

Brunel University Rekha Diwakar Goldsmiths College Andrew M. Dorman King’s College London Keith Dowding

Australian National University Lindy Edwards

Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra Lina Eriksson Adelaide University Dan S. Felsenthal University of Haifa Jennifer Filson University of Minnesota Bryan Finken University of Colorado at Denver Susan Fiske Princeton University Michael Freeden University of Oxford Gianfranco Gambarelli University of Bergamo Azar Gat

Tel Aviv University Peter Glick

Lawrence University Dogan Göçmen University of London Gregg J. Gold

Humboldt State University Brooke C. Greene

Columbia University Catia Gregoratti Lund University Penny Griffin

University of New South Wales Ana Guinote

University College London Vsevolod Gunitskiy Columbia University

(21)

xx Contributors

Stefano Guzzini Danish Institute for

International Studies & Uppsala University Judith A. Hall

Northeastern University Mark Haugaard

National University of Ireland, Galway

Paul ‘t Hart

Australian National University Mary Hawkesworth Rutgers University Jonathan Hearn University of Edinburgh Paul Henman University of Queensland Andrew Hindmoor University of Queensland Manfred J. Holler University of Hamburg Li-Ching Hung

Overseas Chinese University György Hunyady

Eötvòs Loránd University, Budapest Oliver James University of Exeter Bob Jessop Lancaster University Peter John University of Manchester Christer Jönsson Lund University Jonathan Joseph University of Kent John T. Jost

New York University André Kaiser

University of Cologne Alem S. Kebede

California State University, Bakersfield

Marc Kilgour

Wilfrid Laurier University Ruth Kinna

Loughborough University Andrew James Klassen

Australian National University Mathias Koenig-Archibugi London School of Economics

and Political Science Edward A. Kolodziej University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign Bernd Lahno

Frankfurt School of Finance & Management

Valentino Larcinese

London School of Economics and Political Science Dennis Leech

University of Warwick Liane J. Leedom

University of Bridgeport Chris Lewis

Australian National University Robert H. Lieshout

Radboud University Johnson Y. K. Louie

Australian National University Melissa Lovell

Australian National University Debra Lucas

D’Youville College Moshé Machover

University College London John Madeley

London School of Economics and Political Science Martín A. Maldonado Universidad Católica de

Córdoba Siniša Maleševic´

National University of Ireland, Galway Helen Margetts University of Oxford Aaron Martin Australian National University Matt Matravers University of York Nicholas R. Miller University of Maryland, Baltimore County Patit Paban Mishra Sambalpur University Maria Montero

University of Nottingham Peter Morriss

National University of Ireland, Galway Vanessa E. Munro University of London, King’s College Stefan Napel University of Hamburg Sik Hung Ng

City University of Hong Kong Hannu Nurmi University of Turku Rosemary H. T. O’Kane Keele University Adam Packer Australian National University Pamela Pansardi University of Pavia Fioravante Patrone University of Genoa Hans Peters University of Maastricht Bertram H. Raven University of California, Los Angeles Ingrid Robeyns

(22)

xxi Contributors

Daniel Rubenson Ryerson University Caryl E. Rusbult

Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Kevin Ryan

National University of Ireland, Galway

Lawrence Sáez

London School of Economics and Political Science Ignacio Sánchez-Cuenca Juan March Institute Michael Saward Open University Darrow Schecter University of Sussex Ralph Schroeder University of Oxford Oliver C. Schultheiss Friedrich-Alexander University Len Scott University of Wales, Aberystwyth Maija Setälä University of Turku Julia Skorupska University of Oxford Cary Stacy Smith

Mississippi State University Mark Snyder

University of Minnesota Arthur Spirling

Harvard University

Izabella Stach

AGH University of Science and Technology, Krakow Steven J. Stanton University of Michigan Bernard Steunenberg Leiden University Kennedy Stewart Simon Fraser University David Strecker Friedrich-Schiller-Universitaet Jena Doug Stuart Dickinson College Gita Subrahmanyam

London School of Economics and Political Science Ngai-Ling Ivin Sum Lancaster University David L. Swartz Boston University Patricia Lee Sykes American University James Stacey Taylor College of New Jersey Jessica Templeton

London School of Economics and Political Science Geoffrey Till

King’s College London Jacob Torfing

Roskilde University John Uhr

Australian National University

Bert van den Brink Utrecht University Jan-Willem van der Rijt University of Groningen Jojanneke van der Toorn New York University Peter van der Windt Columbia University Stephen Van Evera

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Paul A. M. Van Lange Free University Amsterdam Bertjan Verbeek

Radboud University Nijmegen Andreas Warntjen

University of Twente Patricia A. Weitsman Ohio University David West

Australian National University Garrath Williams

Lancaster University Jeffrey D. Wilson

Australian National University Peter Wilson

London School of Economics and Political Science David G. Winter University of Michigan Chris Wyatt

(23)

(24)

xxiii

Introduction

Power is a ubiquitous theme in the social sciences, not only as a topic in its own right, but also as an issue that underlies many debates and questions that do not explicitly address it. I believe this is the first Encyclopedia of Power to be found in the social sciences; it continues the SAGE Encyclope-dia series providing a comprehensive coverage of disciplines and themes in the social sciences. The encyclopedia includes entries from political sci-ence, international relations, public administra-tion, public policy, urban studies, sociology, social psychology, cultural studies, some also from the viewpoint of economics and studies of animal behavior. Encyclopedias typically offer summaries and discussions of topics rather than the cutting-edge research presented in a handbook. Neverthe-less, many of our entries are by leading scholars in their respective fields, and they have been encour-aged to give their own take on the issues as well as summarizing the current state of knowledge. In addition to the longer entries, in keeping with the SAGE series we also have numerous shorter entries. Some of these expand on concepts touched on in the longer entries, and others offer insights into key concepts related more generally to the field of power.

Many encyclopedias in the SAGE series are fields of study—Geography, Social Theory, Polit-ical Science, and so on—whereas this one is con-cerned with a specific concept within social science. However, as the entries herein demonstrate, that concept has been treated quite differently within different fields of study, while we find similar con-troversies and debates about the concept across fields of study. Providing a single encyclopedia where these contrasting or converging debates and ideas are laid out supplies a ready source of knowl-edge for scholars working in different fields. Ideas from different fields of study can be “taken for a

walk” into new areas for mutual benefit and inno-vation.

Although all of the relevant social sciences are covered in their accounts of power, the bulk of the entries relate to political science (and related sub-disciplines such as public administration and urban studies), international relations, and sociol-ogy. I make no apology for that fact because power lends itself to those disciplines more directly than to others, and there has been far more debate explicitly about power in those three. We also have a large number of formal entries concerned with decision- and game-theoretic measures of power. One reason for the large number in this field is the subtleties of the concept of power that have been formalized and applied particularly in economics, politics, and international relations, though there has also been some application in sociology. Some of these entries provide shorter definitions of tech-nical terms that appear in longer formal entries.

I will begin with a general introduction to the idea of power in the social sciences that introduces the types of debates that we find in all fields of study. I will then discuss the organization and use of the encyclopedia, explaining the rationale of the listing in the Reader’s Guide.

Main Themes in the Study of Power Power can be personal, social, or institutional. It can involve conflict where one forces another to behave in ways the second does not wish, or can be consensual where agents achieve more together than they could alone. It can be thought of as a property of people, or of institutions or other social objects. For some, it can be measured and analyzed; for others, it is a concept that will for-ever remain partly mysterious and always qualita-tive. In some areas of social science, the concept of

(25)

xxiv Introduction

power has almost completely disappeared, reduced to component parts such as resources, or analyzed in terms of strategic interaction where the term power has become redundant. I will briefly con-sider 10 interwoven and overlapping debates or controversies that cut across many fields of study.

A major debate concerns the issues of whether power is a property of agents—whether these are people or institutions—or a property of the rela-tions between agents, the structure of society or groups. Much discussed in sociology and political science, the issue also concerns social psychology where questions about the nature of agency per-form a key role. To what extent can we predict agency by influences around people and subtle influences outside of their ken, and how far are people in control? These issues shade into a second question about the nature of autonomy and free will. Even if we see power as a property of people, their actions might still be determined by the envi-ronment around them. In many disciplines, the nature and scope of constraints upon action and the causes of beliefs and actions constitute impor-tant elements in explanation of social outcomes. Power then can be seen as personal or institutional or as agency-based or structural.

Another theme that pervades all disciplines is whether power is exclusively a descriptive or posi-tive term, or whether it is normaposi-tively implicated. In cultural studies, sociology and political theory espe-cially, how far it is possible to produce theory-free or nonnormative accounts of power is hotly dis-puted. In international relations too, the types of theories that are used to describe and explain rela-tionships between nations are normatively impli-cated in how theorists view power. Here, for example, realists believe that power relations can be objectively defined in terms of the strategic concerns of nations, whereas constructivists believe that we construct the nature of the conflict, which deter-mines actions, and different nations might construct the international system differently. See the entries on realism and constructivism for a much more nuanced and careful study of these theories. The normative nature of power means that it is impli-cated in different theories in different sorts of ways, and this partly explains different conceptions.

The normative force of concepts such as power helps explain another set of concerns. Some analysts

see power in terms of one set of agents’ power over others (or the power of structure over people); oth-ers see that form of power as a subset of power that is descriptive of what people can achieve. Thus, “power over” versus “power to” is a theme running through many debates. In a related sense, some writers concentrate on power as a notion concerning conflict. Where agents have interests at variance with each other, they come into conflict and here power plays out to the advantage of the strongest. Others see power more in consensual terms where working together leads people to achieve more than they could on their own. The reader should read different accounts of power in terms of power to and power over, conflictual or consensual, or in terms of both.

Some believe that power, being a somewhat mysterious notion, is impossible to quantify. Oth-ers believe that it can be quantified, if only roughly, often in terms of the resources that agents bring to situations of conflict or consensus. The mathemat-ical and decision-theoretic formalizations of power are attempts to quantify theoretically and have been applied most thoroughly to voting power. Strategic considerations also enter into such for-malizations through game-theoretic interactions of agents. Taken to its extreme, power can disappear from social scientific analysis if it is reduced to resources and strategies in games—or rather, the term power disappears, reduced to other, more quantifiable and measurable entities. The purpose of such analysis will reveal power even if the term does not appear in the analysis itself.

Many other concepts in the social sciences are related to power, though they are neither reducible to power nor is power reducible to them. Freedom, ability, and capability are three such concepts. Many entries here discuss the relationship between power and such terms, as well as discussing the role of power in grand social scientific theories, whether they be normative, such as liberalism, or positive, such as pluralism.

The Reader’s Guide

The encyclopedia has 381 entries ranging from about 400 words to 4,000 words in length, written by 157 authors from 17 countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary,

(26)

xxv Introduction

India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, the United States, and the United Kingdom). We have a very broad coverage of the field, and no area, I believe, has been ignored, though the difficulty of finding authors to provide entries on some topics means that some entries I would like to have included have had to be omitted. The editorial board of five each assisted the editor in selecting topics, authors for those topics, and in some cases helped edit the entries. Of the board members, Nicholas Miller deserves special mention for his extensive work in editing the decision- and game-theoretic entries to ensure consistency in algebraic formulation through-out the work. I am deeply appreciative of his help.

I have developed a guide to assist readers in their examination of entries and will explain the rationale behind it. The groupings are not mutu-ally exclusive, and many entries appear in more than one category. Some categories are relatively straightforward: Biography, International Rela-tions, Key Debates, Political Science, Political Theory, Social Psychology, Social Theory (whose disciplinary home largely is sociology), and Urban Studies are largely self-explanatory. In Biography, we have a fairly long list of names of major figures in power studies, again dominated by those in politics, international relations, and sociology. Key Debates lists entries that are devoted to a specific debate—some between a relatively limited set of authors, others more general. The other categories just listed are all entries that are discipline-based. Some entries will occur under several of those cat-egories: what constitutes Political Science, Political Theory, or Social Theory is somewhat fluid, with some entries belonging exclusively to one category but others being discussed across all three disci-plines. International Relations and Social Psychol-ogy tend to contain more exclusive entries, whereas many of those under Urban Studies are also listed under Political Science.

Other categories are not disciplinary but theme-based. Under Concepts Related to Power, we have entries on concepts that are subsets of power, such as “Bureaucratic Power” or “False Conscious-ness.” Some are terms closely related to power, such as “Coercion, Analytic” or “Systematic Luck.” Others are technical or quasitechnical terms that denote ways of considering power or are used in

the explanation of a particular approach to power; “Ableness” is a good example. Others have more tenuous connections to power itself but are impor-tant in ways of looking at power and are usually mentioned in longer entries; “Adverse Selection” and “Dispositif” are examples of such terms. Oth-ers still are broader concepts and the way in which one views these concepts will affect how one con-ceptualizes power; for example, “Rationality.”

Institutional Issues entries refer to organizations or ways of organizing the state and how this affects power—such as “Federal Structure” and “Media, The”—or they refer to power relations that are affected by institutions—“Bureaucratic Power” and “Internet and Power,” for example. The Inter-personal Relationships category refers to power relations between people; for example, “Interde-pendence Theory” is about how relations between people affect power and the ways in which people look at themselves; although Intrapersonal Matters entries are those that come largely though not exclusively from social psychology, and refer to entries that affect individuals’ abilities to do what they want—or whether their wants are a reflection of something else in society; thus, “Agency” and “Psychological Empowerment” are included in this category. Methodological Issues is a category for methodological issues in power studies or some-times specific models or ways of looking at power relations that affect how we view power.

Two of the categories are Theories of Power and Types of Power. The former is concerned with grand theories about the power structure or mid-range theory or models that examine specific aspects of power. An example of the first is “Fem-inist Theories of Power”; an example of the sec-ond is the “Collective Action Problem.” Types of Power is concerned more with specific means by which power is generated, thus “Exploitation” makes its home in this category, as does “Manipu-lation.” Again, however, the entries are rather fluid and some are contained within both of the categories.

The Decisions and Game Theory category is a vital one for this encyclopedia. Formal writers have mathematically defined the nature of power within voting games and committees. These entries try to formalize power for clarity and quantification. Many of these entries appear only

(27)

Introduction xxvi

in this section. Merely because the notion of power has been formalized mathematically does not mean that controversy over the concept can be overcome. Many of the issues that arise in less formalized approaches remain. Issues arise over whether power should be defined in terms of what can be done no matter what actors’ prefer-ences are, or whether it should be defined in terms of what agents’ actually are. Structural and agen-tial issues arise here too. Some have tried to take the formalized account of power out of the con-text of voting within committee and across parties within parliaments and apply their results to society more widely. This is a dynamic and grow-ing program.

The Encyclopedia of Power covers most aspects of power in society as a whole. Undoubtedly some issues have been left aside and some covered in more depth than others. That will always be the case with an enterprise such as this. However, the encyclopedia provides the reader with all the major and central debates and covers all the main issues with regard to power in society. Happy reading.

Acknowledgments

This project has taken longer than originally pro-jected, not helped by my move from the London School of Economics and Political Science to the Australian National University. I would like to thank members of the SAGE team in California who have kept the encyclopedia on track while I was distracted and have ensured its steady transi-tion from drafts to final copy, including Diana Axelsen, Alan Cook, Robin Gold, Leticia Gutier-rez, Laura Notton, Yvette Pollastrini, Kate Schroe-der, and especially Sanford Robinson. I have already mentioned the sterling support provided by Nick Miller of the editorial board. I would also like to thank Lucy Robinson who first approached me to run this project and Rolf Janke who together with Lucy discussed the project in the early stages and commissioned it. I would also like to thank Anne Gelling who helped me at the first editing and checking stage of the entire set of entries.

Keith Dowding Australian National University

(28)

(29)

1

A P

RIORI

U

NIONS

See Owen Value

A

BILITY

Often when we talk of a person’s power, we are simply referring to what they can do or have the

ability to do. This is the idea behind the ability

approach to power, which is associated with Peter Morriss.

Abilities are capacities, or dispositions. This

means that they exist over an extended period. During the period that they exist, they may remain unexercised for much, or even all, of the time. Thus, you (probably) have the ability to read Eng-lish. If you were to spend the next year doing anthropological fieldwork in deepest Borneo, you might not exercise this ability (because there is nothing there in English for you to read), yet you would retain the ability to read English.

Abilities are also acquired and lost. When you were 3 months old, you did not have the ability to read English; you subsequently acquired it. Con-versely, after you had spent 30 years with that tribe in Borneo, you might well have lost the ability to read English. But losing an ability is very different from not exercising it. On the ability account of power, what matters is what abilities you have, not what abilities you are exercising.

Yet, typically, abilities are the sorts of things that can be exercised: they require a choice. It is up to you whether to read. But, when you choose not to, you retain the ability. This sometimes creates difficulties in deciding whether an ability is present or not because an ability claim is of the form that you could have done X, not that you did do X, and establishing the truth or falsity of such statements is more difficult than it is for statements about what did happen. But, difficult or not, it has to be done and can be done.

The ability approach to power can apply to both power to and power over. Although it is more normally associated with power to (because that is what Morriss concentrated on), someone who has

power over someone else also has a particular sort

of ability. Thus, if a master has power over his or her slaves, the master can get the slaves to do a large range of things, some of which are mutually incompatible; it is up to the master which of this range of things he or she gets the slaves to do.

Power as an ability is thus different from two other concepts. First, as a dispositional concept, power as an ability is different from the action of exercising power. Second, it is different from a pure disposition or “natural power”—one that is not subject to the actor’s choice, such as the capacity to perform reflex actions under appropriate stimuli. It follows that when we consider the power of non-human actors (such as institutions or countries), only those that can be said to form intentions and make choices can have power-as-ability.

Peter Morriss

(30)

2 Ableness

See also Ableness; Exercise Fallacy; Morriss, Peter; Power To and Power Over

Further Readings

Morriss, P. (2002). Power: A philosophical analysis (2nd ed.). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

A

BLENESS

The term ableness was introduced into the litera-ture by Peter Morriss to describe a refinement in the ability account of power. The idea is that there is an ambiguity in how we normally talk of abili-ties. Abilities can refer to what you can, in gen-eral, do: you can, let us say, read English. But we are often interested, not in such generic abilities, but in what you can do now. Or more generally, we are often interested in your abilities at some specified time, t.

What you can do at time t will depend on the particular circumstances that exist at t, and those circumstances might be unusual. So, although you are able (generically) to read English, you would not be able to do so at time t if, at that time, you do not have your reading glasses with you. With-out your glasses, let us suppose, you are not able to read anything.

To mark this distinction, Morriss used the word ability to refer to the generic sense, and ableness for the time-specific sense. So, without your glasses, you have the ability to read, but lack the ableness. Confusion can arise if we do not mark this distinc-tion. If, at a time when you do not have your glasses, someone were to ask you if you are able to read, you might not know how to reply: if the ques-tioner is conducting a literacy survey, he or she will be enquiring after the ability to read, but if he or she needs you to read something right now, then he or she is asking after your ableness. Here the con-text makes clear which is meant; in more abstract academic work, there is no context, and so clarity requires us to state which sense is to be understood.

Similarly, lack of power can be either lack of ability or lack of ableness. The poor have the abil-ity to dine on caviar and champagne (because they could consume them if they were provided), but they lack the ableness (for they are not provided,

and the poor cannot get them). This example sug-gests that for most political purposes, ableness is more important than is ability: usually what peo-ple are able to do with the goods they do have is what interests us, rather than what they would be able to do with a “standard” allocation of goods. This example shows why Morriss used the term ableness rather than time-specific ability. For the distinction does not rest on whether a time is specified: the poor can never afford champagne. What the distinction does rest on is that ableness refers to a set of actually existing background con-ditions, whereas abilities are established by refer-ence to some set of hypothetical, standardized, background conditions.

Peter Morriss See also Ability; Morriss, Peter

Dowding, K., & van Hees, M. (2008). Freedom, coercion and ability. In M. Braham & F. Steffen (Eds.), Power, freedom and voting. Berlin: Springer.

Morriss, P. (2002). Power: A philosophical analysis (2nd ed.). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

A

BSOLUTISM

In the 17th and 18th centuries, various European monarchs claimed absolute powers within their states. Monarchs claimed a divine right to rule with their subjects having no claim to limit their powers. The Danish “King’s Law” of 1665 states that the monarch was the most perfect and supreme person and stood above all human laws, having no judge above him apart from God. Louis XIV of France is claimed to have stated, “L’État c’est moi” (“the state is me”). The Russian tsars Ivan III, Ivan IV, Peter the Great, and Catherine the Great all had absolute powers; Russia had no parliament until 1905. Even in the 1906 constitu-tion, the tsar is described as an autocrat. Similarly, absolute monarchs ruled in Austria, Portugal, Prussia, and Sweden.

The term absolutism is thus often used to describe the nature of the state in these countries at

(31)

3 Adler, Alfred

this time. These monarchs had great formal powers, which in practice extended to closing down other power centers, emasculating parliaments, creating powerful bureaucracies and standing armies, and generally centralizing power to a greater extent than previously happened. This was the time when many European nation-states were formed, though not all had absolutist rulers. The English Civil War was caused by Charles I’s attempt to assert absolut-ist powers. The idea of a single supreme sovereign power was an influential doctrine given rational rather than religious justification by Thomas Hobbes, precisely because of the fear that divided sovereignty would lead to discord, strife, and civil war. Even Hobbes, though, argued that sovereigns cannot arbitrarily take the life of subjects: that is one power too far because undivided sovereignty is justified by the security it brings.

The power of these monarchs can be overem-phasized. Certainly there were other centers of power, notably the churches and nobility, though absolutist monarchs attempted to enfeeble the lat-ter by requiring them to work with state officials on their lands. Although the idea of absolutism was established at this time, it is not clear that the absolute rulers had significantly greater power than other rulers. Absolute rulers still needed to negotiate with barons and with the church and were beholden to powerful figures within their palaces and bureaucracies.

Keith Dowding See also Bureaucratic Power; Hobbes, Thomas

Anderson, P. (1974). Lineages of the absolute state. London: Verso.

Mettam, R. (1988). Power and faction in Louis XIV’s France. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Miller, J. (1990). Absolutism in seventeenth-century Europe. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

A

DLER

, A

LFRED

(1870–1937)

Alfred Adler is known as the founder of a school of individual psychology. He was born into a

Jewish family on February 7, 1870, in Penzing, a suburb of Vienna, and at an early age decided to become a physician. After graduating in medicine from the University of Vienna in 1895, he became an ophthalmologist, but soon switched to general practice, in which he began to study the linkage of illness and physical deformities to personality development. In 1902, he was invited to join a discussion group that had been initiated by the pioneering Viennese psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). Adler, Freud, and two other psycho-analysts met on Wednesday evenings initially, and the group came to be known Mittwochsgesell-schaft (Wednesday Society). Adler’s book, Study of Organ Inferiority and Its Physical Compensa-tion, was published in 1907. He became the coeditor of the society’s newsletter and, in 1910, Adler was named president of the Vienna Psycho-analytic Society.

Adler’s perception of human behavior and per-sonality differed from Freud’s. Adler challenged Freud’s concept of ego and id and Freud’s belief that sexuality was the root cause of neurosis; Adler contended that the social realm, or exteriority, was as important to psychoanalysis as any internal realm, or interiority. Adler promoted the impor-tance of perceiving an individual holistically, rather than reductively. In 1911, Adler parted company with Freud and his circle and, along with nine of his associates, established the Society for Free Psy-choanalysis, shortly thereafter renamed as the Society for Individual Psychology. In 1912, Adler published his seminal treatise, The Neurotic Con-stitution, describing his main ideas. During World War I, Adler served as a doctor in the Austrian army on the Russian front. Later, Adler wrote numerous books on psychology and organized counseling centers in the Vienna schools.

As a theorist of human psychology, Adler dealt exhaustively in psychotherapy, personality theory, and social action. Between 1907 and 1937 he developed theories regarding the inferiority plex, superiority complex, and psychological com-pensation as well as the relationship between body, mind, and spirit. Adler believed inferiority and superiority complexes were two sides of the same coin. The feeling of superiority was the fruit of a striving whose roots lay in the inferiority complex. Moreover, each human emotion found expression in one’s body language, a manifestation of the

(32)

4 Adorno, Theodor

close connection between mind and body. Adler’s social theory arose from his conviction, based on observation, that to be understood, an individual must be viewed within a social context. Adler’s psychotherapy agenda included information about the lifestyle of patients, self-explanation of patients, and encouragement of the patient’s social interests. Adler thought it important to avoid conveying an authoritarian attitude. His method was to speak face to face with the patient, unlike the Freudian method in which the patient lay on a couch and the analyst sat in a chair not directly facing the patient.

In 1934, Adler emigrated to the United States following the forced closure of his clinics under Nazi policies that targeted Jews and those of Jew-ish heritage for persecution. While on a European tour in 1937, he died of a heart attack én route to a lecture at Aberdeen University in Scotland. Among those on whom Adler’s work has exerted an enormous influence are the American psycholo-gists Abraham Maslow (1908–1970), Rollo May (1909–1994), and Albert Ellis (1913–2007).

Patit Paban Mishra See also Striving for Superiority; Submissive

Adler, A. (1956). The individual psychology of Alfred Adler: A systematic presentation in selections from his writings. New York: Basic Books.

Crandall, J. E. (1981). Theory and measurement of social interest: Empirical tests of Alfred Adler’s concept. New York: Columbia University Press.

Grey, L. (1998). Alfred Adler, the forgotten prophet: A vision for the 21st century. Westport, CT: Praeger. Rattner, J. (1983). Alfred Adler. New York: F. Ungar.

A

DORNO

, T

HEODOR

(1903–1969)

Together with Max Horkheimer, Theodor Weisen-grund Adorno was the main representative of the critical social theory of the Frankfurt School. As a theorist of power, Adorno is perhaps best charac-terized as an early post-Marxist. As a scholar, his aim was a critical theory of modern society that

analyzed its social pathologies from an evaluative standpoint inspired by emancipatory, utopian interests. All this he shared with Karl Marx. Dif-ferent from Marx, Adorno analyzed pathological power relations in terms of the dominance of a one-sided instrumental rationalization of moder-nity that leaves no room for genuine self-govern-ment and self-realization. According to Adorno, capitalistic economic relations are just one instan-tiation of this deeper social pathology of moder-nity. Bureaucratic power and the culture industry are two others. The control, discipline, social cat-egorization, and amusement they offer reconcile people with the reifying functional requirements of capitalism and stand in the way of genuine free-dom. Adorno inherited his focus on rationality and reason rather than on socioeconomic issues from German idealism, most importantly from Georg Wilhelm Friederich Hegel. In its socio- theoretical consequences, Max Weber’s influence is strong.

With Horkheimer, Adorno developed a critique of instrumental rationality in Dialectic of Enlight-enment. Their main thesis is that in striving for enlightenment—individual and collective freedom through the use of reason—humans are doomed to lose the very freedom they are after. Immediate and uncontrolled desires, bodily experience, and aes-thetical awe for nature have to give way to instru-mentalizing forms of control by means of which we preserve and govern ourselves. This control is power. It forces us to objectify ourselves, others, and nature and thus reify ourselves, others, and nature. We need to exercise power in our struggle to be free, but in exercising power we necessarily alienate ourselves from the non-instrumentalizing relations to self, others, and nature that are a pre-condition of genuine freedom. As in the writings of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Weber, Adorno’s rationalized modern person has lost all orientation in life.

In the 1930s and 1940s, Adorno, who with most of his colleagues from Frankfurt had to flee Nazi Germany, lost all socialist hopes of a revolution of the proletariat against failed modernity. He under-stood National Socialism as the disappointed masses’ escape into a quasi-mythical system that promised to restore the meaning and sentient free-dom that modernity had destroyed. Adorno noted that the proletariat happily accepted this devastating

(33)

5 Adverse Selection

modern myth. He explained the Holocaust as part of this quasi-mythical struggle against failed modernity, of which the Jews were presented as the main architects.

Adorno never developed a systematic theory of nonpathological rationalization, or productive power, as his junior colleague and later successor in Frankfurt Jürgen Habermas did in his Theory of Communicative Action (1981). For glimpses of freedom from arbitrary power, Adorno rather set his hopes on an extra-theoretical form of ethical reflection (Minima Moralia, 1974), a critique of identity thinking, deconstructing the power that generalizing concepts have over our particular experience of the world (Negative Dialectics, 1966), and an understanding of the aesthetical experience as a last resort for a critique of ity. “The falsehood opposed by art is not rational-ity per se but the fixed opposition of rationalrational-ity to particularity” (Aesthetic Theory, 1970).

Bert van den Brink See also Critical Theory; Habermas, Jürgen; Weber, Max

Adorno, T. W. (1973). Negative dialectics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1966)

Bernstein, J. M. (2001). Adorno: Disenchantment and ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Honneth, A. (1993). The critique of power. Cambridge:

MIT Press.

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1972). Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Allen Lane. (Original work published 1944)

A

DVERSE

S

ELECTION

Gresham’s law states that bad money drives out good and is the classic expression of adverse selec-tion. In the days when coins were composed of real silver, their holders might shave a small sliver off before using the coin in exchange. Everyone realized that any coin one received might have been shaved in this manner, so people were not prepared to exchange as much for any coin as they

would for a coin they knew had not been shaved. Knowing this, those who held unshaved coins would then not spend them or would shave them before using them. Bad money drives out good.

The idea of adverse selection is now a key aspect of economic theory. George Akerlof reintro-duced the idea of adverse selection in his classic article based on the used-car market. In his ver-sion, every car owner knows whether his car is a good one; however, the buyer is unsure. Good cars are worth a high price to both buyer and seller, but because buyers do not know if used cars are good or bad, they will only pay the amount of a bad car. Thus, good cars will not come on the market.

Adverse selection in the health market, for example, will come about because those who know that they have or are likely to have health problems are those who are keenest on getting health insurance. The problem arises because, as in the coin and car examples, there is asymmetry of information: one contractor knows more about himself or herself than does the other. However, the other contractor can realize that there is this informational asymmetry and respond. Insurance companies need to price their products on the assumption that there will be adverse selection, making insurance in the health case more expen-sive for those who are not so likely to have health problems. Of course, insurance companies can also attempt to gain information, by running health checks on applicants, and making their cus-tomers pay a certain percentage of health costs on top of their insurance premium.

The idea of adverse selection is used as part of the principal–agent problem, a problem of con-tracting. In the principal–agent problem, adverse selection occurs because those least qualified for a job are also those most keen to attain it. At any level of remuneration, those least qualified are likely to gain the most in comparison to the job they already have and thus be more eager to get the job. They will sell themselves more and work harder to secure the position. Adverse selection only occurs where there is heterogeneity in the population of qualified candidates, and those with some charac-teristics that the principal does not want are most likely to be those who come forward.

In general, we can see adverse selection as an informational problem that gives one person some power over another to the latter’s disadvantage. In

Encyclopedia of Power

Encyclopedia of

Editorial Board

Editor

Advisory Board

Encyclopedia of

Keith Dowding

Edited by

POWER

Australian National University

Contents

List of Entries

Reader’s Guide

About the Editor

Contributors

Introduction

A P

U

See Owen Value

A

A

A

A

, A

(1870–1937)

A

, T

(1903–1969)

A

S