The conceptualization of power in the contemporary scientific discourse of domination

The conceptualization of power in the contemporary scientific discourse of domination


Nedyak I.L.,

Institute of Sociology of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, iraned@mail.ru


elibrary_id: 212155 |


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2022.01.11

For citation:

Nedyak I.L. The conceptualization of power in the contemporary scientific discourse of domination. – Polis. Political Studies. 2022. No. 1. P. 136-149. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.01.11



Abstract

This article examines the tensions between political power and domination in contemporary democratic societies. In doing so, it explores the ways to study power relations in the framework of modern conceptions of domination. Their analytically promising development was stimulated by the widespread and large-scale intensification of social relations of domination. Domination is defined as a form of structural and dispositional power that deprives the representative institutions of their democratic content and enhances non-political power interaction. The modern theory of domination claims emancipation and empowerment to be the highest political values and raison d’etre of democracy. Power and politics are evaluated on a scale which has for poles “non-political power/domination” and “political power /empowerment”. The paper presents the most influential modern concepts of domination and reviews the major divisions in discussions of power and democratic politics in the scientific discourse of domination. The working hypothesis of the theory of domination was verified using the data of all-Russian representative surveys (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) conducted by the Comparative Political Research Department of the Institute of Sociology of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The article explores data analysis that was done in line with the approach of the Neo-republican conception of domination as arbitrary power, which is widely recognized as the most influential in the contemporary discourse of domination. The finding that there is a deep penetration of relations of domination in Russian society is reached by estimating their impact in several dimensions: processes of alienation and social disintegration, interiorization of political culture of servitude, promotion of strategies of “exit”. 

Keywords
power, domination, politics of emancipation, empowerment, conceptions of domination.


References

Arendt, H. (1989). The human condition. London: University of Chicago Press.

Bachrach, P., &Baratz, M. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science Review, 56, 947-952. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952796

Castoriadis, C. (1987). The imaginary institution of societyCambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Dahl, R. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 1, 101-215.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (1980). Two lectures. Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. New York: Pantheon.

Honneth, A. (2015). Freedom’s right: the social foundations of democratic life (new directions in critical theory). New York: Columbia University Press.

Laborde C., & Maynor J. (2008). Republicanism and political theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lovett, F. (2010). A general theory of domination and justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lovett, F., & Whitfield, G. (2016). Republicanism, perfectionism, and neutrality. Journal of Political Philosophy, 4(1), 120-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12067

Lukes, S. (1974). Power: a radical view. London: MacMillan.

Maynor, J. (2003). Republicanism in the modern world. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Perkins, D.D. (2010). Empowerment. In R.A. Couto (Ed.), Political and civic leadership (pp. 207-218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pettit, Ph. (1996). Freedom as antipower. Ethics. An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy, 106(3), 576-604.

Pettit, Ph. (2008). Republican liberty: three axioms, four theorems. In C. Laborde, & J. Maynor (Ed.), Republicanism and political theory (102-132)Oxford: Blackwell.

Pettit, Ph. (2013). Two republican traditions. In A. Niederberger, & P. Schink (Ed.), Republican democracy. liberty, law and politics (pp. 169-204)Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.

Skinner, Q. (2002). A third concept of liberty. Proceedings of the British Academy, 117, 136-268. https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197262795.003.0007

Speer, P.W. (2000). Intrapersonal and interactional empowerment: implications for theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(200001)28:1%3C51::AID-JCOP6%3E3.0.CO;2-6

Stewart, A. (2001). Theories of power and domination. The politics of empowerment in late modernity. London, N. Deli: Thousand Oaks.

Zimmerman, M.A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 725-750. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00930023 

 

Haugaard, M. (2019). Rethinking the Four dimensions of power: domination and empowerment. – Political Science (RU), 3, 30-62. (In Russ.) http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2019.03.02

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, Th.W. (1997). Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente. (Russ. ed.: Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, Th.W. Dialektika Prosveshcheniya. Filosofskie fragmenty. Moscow, Saint Petersburg: Medium, Yuventa).

Lukes, S. (2010). Power: A radical view. (Russ. ed.: Lukes, S. Vlast’: Radikal’nyi vzglyad. Moscow: The Higher School of Economics Publishing House).

Marcuse, H. (2003). Der eindimensionale Mensch. (Russ. ed.: Marcuse, H. Odnomernyi chelovek. Moscow: AST Publ., Ermak).

Nedyak, I. (2021). Power and domination in the collective imaginary. Factors of the (de)formation of the political sphere in Russia. Social Sciences and Contemporary World, 3, 30-45. (In Russ.) http://www.doi.org/10.31857/S086904990015418-1

Nedyak, I.L., Pavlova, T.V., Patrushev, S.V., & Philippova, L.E. (2020). Political field and zone of power: ideal type varieties and an empirical verification. Sociological Studies, 1, 42-53. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250008323-8

Patrushev S.V., & Filippova L.E. (2019). Gospodstvo protiv politiki: rossiiskii sluchai. Effektivnost‘ institutsional‘noi politiki i potentsial strategii politicheskikh izmenenii [Domination against politics: the Russian case. The effectiveness of institutional policies and the potential of policy change strategies]. Moscow: Politicheskaya entsiklopediya. (In Russ.)

Patrushev, S.V., & Filippova, L.E. (2020). Struktury gospodstva, grazhdane i instituty [Structures of domination, citizens and institutions]. Moscow: Politicheskaya entsiklopediya. (In Russ.)

Patrushev, S.V., Kuchinov, A.M., Miryasova, O.A., Nedyak, I.L., Pavlova, T.V., & Filippova, L.E. (2020). Formation of civic responsibility in Russia. Sociologicheskaja nauka i social’naja praktika, 8(1), 27-47. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19181/snsp.2020.8.1.7093

Pettit, Ph. (2016). Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government. (Russ. ed.: Pettit, Ph. Respublikanizm. Teoriya svobody i gosudarstvennogo pravleniya. Moscow: Izd-vo In-ta Gaidara).

Shapiro, I. (2019). Politics against domination. (Russ. ed.: Shapiro, I. Politika protiv gospodstva. Moscow: Praxis. 476 p.)

Weber, M. (2019). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. (Russ ed.: Weber, M. Khozyaystvo i obshchestvo: ocherki ponimayushchey sotsiologii. Vol. 4. Sotsiologiya. Moscow: The Higher School of Economics Publishing House). 

Content No. 1, 2022

See also:


Chesnokov S.V.,
Max Weber’s “Herrschaftssoziologie” in the Light of L.A. Tikhomirov’s Theory of Supreme Power. – Polis. Political Studies. 2000. No2

Solovyov A.I.,
Power and Politics. Polemic Notes about “Damned Questions” of Political Science. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No6

Kapustin B.G.,
To the Notion of Political Violence. – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No6

Ratz M.V.,
Policy, management, power: a conceptual project of the system of (the state’s) organizational/managerial activities. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No2

Ratz M.V., Kotelnikov S.I.,
G.P. Schedrovitsky’s ideas in Russian socio-political thought (in commemoration of the 85th anniversary). – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No3

 

   

Introducing an article



Polis. Political Studies
6 2020


Graham T.
China-Russia-US Relations and Strategic Triangles

 The article text      Full Text (English)  
 

Archive

   2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991