Power, Trust, and Planning

Abstract

This article critically evaluates the Foucauldian perspective on power. Foucault’s arguments seem to take three steps: (1) the vocabulary of power is elevated to a privileged status, (2) the meaning of power is extended to cover all human social behavior, and (3) the argument equivocates between two different meanings of power. The result is that the external theory of power overwhelms internal understanding. All planning processes are seen as a sham, understandable only in terms of who wields power. In practice, an obsession with power is dangerous. A theoretical focus on power could blind us to other realities. Everything could be reinterpreted within a reductionistic framework (a metanarrative) of power. A practical focus on power could breed despair and suspicion, undermining trust. The authors argue that the vocabulary of power is more useful for legitimate conflict resolution, consensus building, and planning.