Two Faces of Power

TLDR

The concept of power remains elusive, with sociologists finding it highly centralized and political scientists viewing it as widely diffused, a divergence attributed to differing assumptions and methodologies. This paper argues that pluralists, like elitists, rely on assumptions that predefine their conclusions, proposing that power has two faces—one seen only by political scientists. The persistent disagreement between sociologists and political scientists demonstrates power’s elusiveness, revealing that divergent findings stem from fundamental differences in underlying assumptions and research methods.

Abstract

The concept of power remains elusive despite the recent and prolific outpourings of case studies on community power. Its elusiveness is dramatically demonstrated by the regularity of disagreement as to the locus of community power between the sociologists and the political scientists. Sociologically oriented researchers have consistently found that power is highly centralized, while scholars trained in political science have just as regularly concluded that in “their” communities power is widely diffused. Presumably, this explains why the latter group styles itself “pluralist,” its counterpart “elitist.” There seems no room for doubt that the sharply divergent findings of the two groups are the product, not of sheer coincidence, but of fundamental differences in both their underlying assumptions and research methodology. The political scientists have contended that these differences in findings can be explained by the faulty approach and presuppositions of the sociologists. We contend in this paper that the pluralists themselves have not grasped the whole truth of the matter; that while their criticisms of the elitists are sound, they, like the elitists, utilize an approach and assumptions which predetermine their conclusions. Our argument is cast within the frame of our central thesis: that there are two faces of power, neither of which the sociologists see and only one of which the political scientists see.