The first and second dimensions
Dahl (1957) defined power as the extent to which A can get B to do something B would not otherwise do, and proposed measuring it by observing who prevails in actual policy decisions. This underpinned pluralism. Bachrach and Baratz (1962, 1963) criticized this view and identified a 'second face' of power: powerful groups also exercise power through 'nondecisions' that keep unfavorable issues off the agenda, which observing decisions alone cannot reveal.
The third dimension
Lukes (2005) argued that both views assume power is visible only where there is observable conflict. The most effective power, he argued, makes people see their situation as natural or unchangeable, so that grievances never arise. Power then appears as a gap between people's 'real interests' and expressed preferences. Gaventa (1980) used this dimension to explain the long quiescence of Appalachian mining communities despite harsh conditions. The view also lent theoretical support to power elite theory and elite theory.
Critiques and a fourth dimension
Critics argue that letting researchers judge 'real interests' is paternalistic and hard to verify empirically. In his second edition, Lukes himself acknowledged that treating power solely as domination was too narrow. Digeser (1992) proposed a 'fourth face' of power in the Foucauldian sense that constitutes subjects themselves, and Haugaard (2012) reorganized the debate into a four-dimensional framework covering both domination and empowerment.
FAQ
- What is the three-dimensional view of power in simple terms?
- Power can be split into the power to win in a meeting, the power to keep awkward topics off the agenda, and the power to shape people's thinking so they never complain at all.
- Why is the third dimension controversial?
- It requires researchers to judge people's 'real interests', which is hard to prove objectively and is criticized as paternalistic.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan. The founding text.
- Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215. The first dimension.
- Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), 947–952. The second face.
- Bachrach, P., & Baratz, M. S. (1963). Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. American Political Science Review, 57(3), 632–642. Nondecisions framework.
- Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian valley. University of Illinois Press. Appalachian case study.
- Digeser, P. (1992). The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics, 54(4), 977–1007. The fourth face.
- Haugaard, M. (2012). Rethinking the four dimensions of power: Domination and empowerment. Journal of Political Power, 5(1), 33–54. Four dimensions revisited.