Power and Contentment
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6352884 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James A Doyle (0000-0002-4083-8786, corresponding author), James Doyle |
| Year | 1998 |
| Volume | 18 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 49-56 |
| Publication date | 1998-02-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Politics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0032-3268 • E-ISSN: 1467-9256 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9256.00060 |
| OpenAlex | W2061679340 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 5 |
In a recent article in this journal (Politics Vol. 17 No. 1), Colin Hay rethinks the radical conception of power developed by Steven Lukes. Hay argues that the failure to keep analytical and normative questions distinct means that Lukes mistakenly conflates the identification and critique of power relations. To circumvent this problem, Hay redefines the concept in terms which remove normative questions from the analysis of power. In this article, the contention is that the definition proposed by Hay does not meet his objective. It is argued that, contrary to Hay and other critics, the radical conception of power can be made to work within the terms originally articulated by Lukes
Contentment · Epistemology · Identification (biology · Normative · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Sociology · Law · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics · Psychology · Social Psychology
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,19 |
| Citation span | 1999 - 2015 (17) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |