Excerpt from an Iteration on the Exercise of Power in American Politics

The Enlightenment is often defined as a European philosophical movement that

emphasized rational thought and scientific discovery over dogma and tradition.1 What this

definition fails to acknowledge is that Enlightenment ideals serve as the irreplaceable foundation

for modern liberal democracies. Before the Enlightenment, power was almost exclusively

concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. Most commonly, these were kings and religious

authorities who claimed they derived their authority from God. These men made decisions that

impacted all of society based off of deductive reasoning and religious dogma. The Enlightenment

transformed that. The societies that embrace Enlightenment ideals put the individual at the heart

of politics. They believe that through reasoning, scientific discovery, and open discourse, people

could make rational choices and advance their self-interest.2 The original Enlightenment thinkers

and generations of subsequent scholars cherished these ideals. However, even the most

optimistic of them conceded that ideals do not always translate to reality. As Walter Lippmann

noted, modernity is too complex for anyone to completely understand. Rather, an individual

experiences a partial version of reality constructed by the bits and pieces of information they do

understand.3 Thus, there is power in being able to manipulate conceived reality. Indeed, John

Gaventa notes that in liberal democracies, power can be exercised three main ways. He refers to

them as the three dimensions of power. The first dimension is aligned with pluralist theory.

Those who want change seek it by voting, running for office or participating in various forms of

1
Szalay, Jessie. "What Was the Enlightenment?" LiveScience. July 07, 2016

2
Soll, Jacob. "The Culture of Criticism." New Republic. May 20, 2015. And Rod Dreher • September 26, 2016, 3:59
PM. "The End Of Liberal Democracy?" The American Conservative.
3
Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
activism. If they achieve their desired result through a change in policy, they have wielded

power. However, the first dimension of power is incomplete. It fails to adequately explain why

certain issue are considered while others are not. The second dimension of power addresses this

problem. It is defined is the ability to shape political discourse. It has two main parts: agenda

setting and framing. Agenda setting is the ability to either prevent or advance the public

discussion of a certain issue. Framing is the ability to shape how the public thinks about a certain

issue. Finally, the third dimension, and ultimate expression, of power occurs when an actor is
able to control the way a group of people think about events and themselves.4The very first
Chapter of John Gaventa’s booknovel Power and Powerlessness completes a daunting task: it
defines political powerand summarizes the three main ways in which power is exercised.
Gaventa He refers to three these methods as the first, second, and third dimensions of power. The
first dimension is aligned with well encapsulated by pluralist theory. Those who want change
seek it by voting, running for office, or participating in various forms of activism. If they achieve
their desired result through a change in policy, they have wielded power. If a citizen does not
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Commented [Office1]: I want you to look up the
definition of this word. There is fiction and nonfiction.
Gaventa is not writing fiction. Ergo, he has not written a
novel. “Novel” is not synonymous with book. Some books
are novels, though not all. Secondly, I asked you to write a
15-page paper. Instead, you presented me with a 21-page
paper. You tried perhaps to obscure that fact by using 11-
point font, which violates explicit instructions found in the
syllabus. Learning to express complex ideas in a limited
space is an important skill. You must cut seven pages form
this paper. Third, textual citations as you have here are
made redundant by footnotes, the prescribed citation
method for this paper. Fourth, a footnote for this assertion
about Gaventa is missing, though in this case it is a
reasonable judgment call. Finally, “very” is rarely used in
formal writing. It is like shouting. Avoid it. Tough start.

advocate for change, he or she is thought to be content. The second dimension of power occurs Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
when an actor creates an environment that discourages the discussion of any views that he or she Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
finds unfavorable. Thus, in this dimension, non-activism is due to the systematic silencing of
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
dissent. This dimension is where the vast majority of politics occurs, and can be observed in both Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
the agenda setting and framing abilities of political elites. Finally, the third dimension-and
Commented [Office2]: While some of what you’ve said
here is loosely associated with pluralism and the 1st
ultimate expression- of power occurs when an actor is able to control the way a group of people dimension of power, it misses the main point: pluralist
theory takes a given issue agenda for granted. It fails to
think about events and themselves. In this dimension, citizens are unable to even notice that an question why an issue is being considered or why some
other issue is not.

unpleasant or harmful aspect of their environment is a problem. The goal of this paper thus far is Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Commented [Office3]: Here again, I have the impression
that you understand the concept. The problem is found in
4 imprecise expression.
Gaventa, John Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. Urbana (University
of Illinois Press, 1982) Formatted: Font: 12 pt
to explore various definitions, critiques, and examples of the first two dimensions of power
within American politics.
The first Chapter of John Gaventa’s book Power and Powerlessness completes a
daunting task: it defines political power. He refers to three dimensions of power. The first
dimension is aligned with pluralist theory. Those who want change seek it by voting, running for
office, or participating in various forms of activism. If they achieve their desired result through a
change in policy, they have wielded power. If a citizen does not advocate for change, he or she is
thought to be content. The second dimension of power occurs when an actor creates an
environment that discourages the discussion of any views that he or she finds unfavorable. Thus,
in this dimension, non-activism is due to the systematic silencing of dissent. This dimension is
where the vast majority of politics occurs, and can be observed in both the agenda setting and
framing abilities of political elites. Finally, the third dimension-and ultimate expression- of
power occurs when an actor is able to control the way a group of people think about events and
themselves. In this dimension, citizens are unable to even notice that an unpleasant or harmful
aspect of their environment is a problem. The goal of this paper thus far is to explore various
definitions, critiques, and examples of the first two dimensions of power within American
politics.
The First Dimension
Before examining the first dimension of power in the United States, it is essential
important to understand the ideals on which its political landscape is based. To begin, oIn order
to do so, one might consider America’s relationship to Enlightenment thinking and liberal-
democratic thought. Then, one can examine the definition and critiques of the first dimension of
power.
Commented [Office4]: I want you to look up the
definition of this word. There is fiction and nonfiction.
Gaventa is not writing fiction. Ergo, he has not written a
novel. “Novel” is not synonymous with book. Some books
are novels, though not all. Secondly, I asked you to write a
15-page paper. Instead, you presented me with a 21-page
paper. You tried perhaps to obscure that fact by using 11-
point font, which violates explicit instructions found in the
syllabus. Learning to express complex ideas in a limited
space is an important skill. You must cut seven pages form
this paper. Third, textual citations as you have here are
made redundant by footnotes, the prescribed citation
method for this paper. Fourth, a footnote for this assertion
about Gaventa is missing, though in this case it is a
reasonable judgment call. Finally, “very” is rarely used in
formal writing. It is like shouting. Avoid it. Tough start.
Commented [Office5]: While some of what you’ve said
here is loosely associated with pluralism and the 1st
dimension of power, it misses the main point: pluralist
theory takes a given issue agenda for granted. It fails to
question why an issue is being considered or why some
other issue is not.
Commented [Office6]: Here again, I have the impression
that you understand the concept. The problem is found in
imprecise expression.
Formatted: Tab stops: 1.13", Left
Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Not Bold
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Commented [Office7]: Read your original sentence. A
few unneeded words here, and overstatement there and
you have a weak sentence. Learn to read your own work
with a critical eye.
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
 In the article, “What was the Enlightenment,” Jessie Szalay explains the origins of the Commented [Office8]: Every textual citation must be
cut. Refer to the author(s) only and then cite using a
footnote. The first mention of an author uses his or her full
Enlightenment, as well as its impact on America’s Revolution and founding literature. Szalay
name. Thereafter, the surname is sufficient.

defines the Enlightenment as a philosophical movement that occurred in late 17th and early 18th Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
century Europe and North America. Its is thought to have origins are found in the Scientific Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Revolution of the 1600s, as it emphasized that the world should be understood through scientific

discovery and rational thought as opposed to religious dogma. It also enshrined ideals such as Commented [Office9]: I’ve started to edit this sentence.
You finish.
skepticism, religious freedom, liberty, universal education, and free market capitalism. Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Enlightenment ideals were instrumental in a number of revolutions, perhaps none more so than

the American Revolution. Indeed, the founders incorporated Enlightenment philosophy into all

of America’s founding literature (Szalay 2016). Based on these ideals, America was established

as a liberal democracy.

In his article, “The Rise of Illiberal Democracy,” Fareed Zakaria clearly defines both of Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Strikethrough
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
the words that constitute this phrase. “Liberal” signifies enlightenment ideals, such as rule of

law, separation of powers, and protection of liberties. “Democracy” simply means free and fair

elections. The two do not necessarily have to coincide. Liberal aristocracies were the status quo

for most of 19th century Europe. In addition, in many regions within South America, Central

America, and Africa today, democracies coincide with extreme human rights violations. America

has long been understood as a liberal democracy in which pluralism has been able to flourish,

though that conception has recently come under fire (Zakaria 1997). That idea will be explored

more later.

After understanding the background of American politics, we can begin to examine the

first dimension of power. Gaventa claims that the first dimension is essentially that of pluralists,

most notably explored in American politics by Robert Dahl. Dahl’s explanation of the first
dimension can be summarized by the statement, “A has power over B to the extent that he can

get B to do something B would not otherwise do.” (Gaventa 1982, Location 185)5. This Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
dimension focuses largely on participation, and assumes that people participate in the areas they

care about the most. In addition, it is assumed that participation occurs within in decision-making

arenas that are open to virtually any organization or group. Finally, due to the openness of the

decision-making process, leaders are not seen as elites, but as a mere representative of the

masses. In early pluralist theory, non-participation of a citizen was thought to be due to his or her

general feeling of content. Other explanations for non-participation include “irrational” or

inefficient” behavior (Gaventa 1982, locations 185-199).6 However, pluralists realized a flaw in Formatted: Font: 12 pt

this assessment, noting that some Americans, especially those of the lower class, are highly

unlikely to participate in politics because they are preoccupied with other matters, such as

making money.7 (Gaventa 1982, location 209). However, Gaventa challenges this conviction, Commented [Office10]: I sense an abrupt change in style
in this paragraph.
suggesting that there is nothing inherent about theto the lower classes that would explain political Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
tranquility. As an example, he points to the highly organized Civil Rights movement, that was
Formatted: Font: 12 pt

constituted largely by African Americans of low socioeconomic status (Gaventa 1982, location

239).8 Gaventa believes that, when standing alone, pluralist theory collapses. Formatted: Font: 12 pt

In their piece, “The Two Faces of Power,” Morton S. Baratz and Peter Bachrach also Formatted: Font: 12 pt

explore the inadequacy of the pluralist view of power. Their definition of the first dimension of

power (which they refer to as the first “face”) generally aligns with Gaventa’s. They add that
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
pluralists are mainly concerned with participation in key, not routine, political decisions. Baratz
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman

and Bacharach offer two major critiques of the pluralist view. Their first is valid within pluralist Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
5
Gaventa, John Power and Powerlessness. Location 185 (Gaventa 1982, ) Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt
6
Ibid, Locations 185 - 199
7 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
Ibid, Location 209
8
Ibid, Location 239 Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman
assumptions: the pluralists fail to establish any objective criteria for distinguishing between

important and unimportant decisions. Their second criticism is that pluralists fail to recognize

that there is power in limiting the decision-making process to a set of “safe” issues (Baratz and

Bacharach 1962, 947-948).9 This opens the discussion on the second dimension of power. Formatted: Font: 12 pt

The Second Dimension Formatted: Font: 12 pt

The second dimension of power, which is commonly referred to as agenda setting,

occurs when a group or individual exercises control over the issues that gain political attention.

Baratz and Bacharach, E.E. Schattschneider, and Murray Edelman all explore slight variations of

this concept. Examples of the second dimension of power include the lack of criticism of the Formatted: Font: 12 pt

failures to liberal democracy, disinformation campaigns against scientific discoveries with

political implications, and widespread violence against journalists. Framing, which is commonly Commented [BR11]: Add something about TANS?
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
thought of as an extension of agenda setting, is also utilized within the second dimension of
Formatted: Font: 12 pt

power. Framing is not used to control what issues dominate public discussion, but rather to

control how the public thinks about a certain issue. Exercises of framing can be examined

through the “Weekend Passes” campaign ad of 1988, President Bush’s response to the terrorist

attacks of 9/11, and the media representation of the Abu Ghraib scandal.

9
Bachrach, Peter. Baratz, Morton “Two faces of Power” The American Political Science Review 56, no. 4
December 01, 1962 947-52.