Revisiting the Radical View
Power, Real Interests and the Difficulty of Separating Analysis from Critique
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6353029 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Clare Heyward (0000-0003-4099-2748) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 48-54 |
| Publication date | 2007-02-01 |
| 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/j.1467-9256.2007.00278.x |
| OpenAlex | W1999317000 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 14 |
Lukes's three-dimensional view of power (1974) included a substantial normative element. This prompted some, including Hay (1997 and 2002 ) to argue that Lukes conflated analysis and critique, which resulted in unsatisfactory answers to some difficult questions about the exercise of power. This article examines Hay's critique and Lukes's defence of the normative component in his revised edition of Power: A Radical View(2005). It argues that attempts to formulate a purely empirical account of ‘real interests’ and separate the analysis of the third face of power from critique fail because positions on the structure and agency debate are at least partly informed by normative commitments and it shows how Lukes's 2005 reformulation can provide answers to two questions raised in his 1974 discussion
Agency (philosophy · Conflation · Economics · Element (criminal law · Epistemology · Face (sociological concept · Normative · Political science · Positive economics · Power (physics · Social science · Sociology · Structure and agency · Critical Theory and Philosophy · Foucault, Power, and Ethics · Law · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,17 |
| Citation span | 2008 - 2020 (13) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |