Theorizing power

Weber, Parsons, Foucault and neostructuralism

Datos Bibliográficos

ID3064592
AutoresRisto Heiskala (0000-0003-4466-7491, autor de correspondencia)
Año2001
Volumen40
Número2
Páginas241-264
Fecha de publicación2001-06-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaSocial Science Information (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0539-0184 • E-ISSN: 1461-7412
EditorialSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/053901801040002003
OpenAlexW2101212715
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas19
Referencias citadas13

The article is an attempt to develop a synthetic conception of power based on Weber's, Parsons's and Foucault's writings. The aim is, first, to build a bridge between the so-called resource theories of power (Weber, Parsons) and the structural approach (Foucault) and, second, to do this in the form of a conception which would be usable on both macro- and micro-levels at the same time. Four theories are discussed: (1) the distributive approach (Weber); (2) the collective approach (Parsons); (3) the structural approach (Foucault); and (4) the neostructuralist approach (this article). It is argued that these approaches can be ordered on a scale on which the complexity of analysis increases as one moves from (1) to (4), and that the selection of an appropriate level of analysis in an empirical study is a practical issue relative to the aim of the study. The types of analyses characteristic of the more complex levels are illustrated by a discussion of the problem posed by Big Case Comparison in historical sociology (level 3) and everyday conversation (level 4), including comments on phenomenological sociology and conversation analysis

Bridge (graph theory) · Conversation · Epistemology · Power (physics) · Sociology · Foucault, Power, and Ethics · Labor Movements and Unions · Philosophy · Social Policy and Reform Studies