The Methodology of Power: Core Elements and Structure

Abstract

The study of power can be cast in two extreme forms: either as a definitional exercise that serves to distil an essence; or as an empirical exercise in which the object is to demonstrate its mode of operation. The first concern of this thesis is with the gap between these extremes. It sets out to identify the elements of the various definitional approaches to power adopted in the community Power debate, and to consider their operational implications. Some of these elements can be seen as central to any discussion of power, whereas others are ‘heterogeneous extensions’, any one of which may give an instance of power its distinctive character without being universally relevant. Some of the difficulties in the power debate stem from a failure to distinguish between core and peripheral elements. Participants have tended, for example, to focus on conflict. But while there are all sorts of reasons for being interested in that, none of them have to do with the core requirements. Each of the major studies in the community power debate is, therefore, analysed in turn to identify the elements that are central to it, and to assess the empirical data that the authors have gathered in their support. As a result, four elements are proposed as being essential to any inquiry: actor; intention; action; and outcome. Of these, intention is the most troublesome, and is discussed at some length. Outcome is the most overlooked, but is seen as the critical focusing device. Any statement about power involves a counterfactual conditional: without the exercise of Power a different state of affairs would have obtained. Because it is possible for an outcome to exist simply in comparative perspective, the counterfactual becomes doubly important, and makes clear that complexity and relativity are essential features of power analysis. In other words, although the identification of core elements may be crucial, what they tell us about power in society will depend entirely on the way in which they are focused and. structured. The second major concern of the thesis, therefore, is to consider the implications of ‘structure’, a concept that has been given only impressionistic reference in the literature on community power. Where it does become the focus of debate it is immediately extended to mean ‘structural determinism. Rejecting such an interpretation, it is argued that the concept has very definite implications concerning the positions occupied by the observer and the subject in relation to the outcome identified. These need to be resolved before entering upon any debate over the limits of free will, and, hence, of power. The central problem in the study of power is methodological, and not ideological. As the first, and most basic, step towards its resolution it has to be recognised that data concerning the core elements must be structured at both of the levels of, meaning identified here.