In this setting we can differentiate between:
1.Outcome power—the ability of an actor to bring about or help bring about outcomes;
2.Social power—the ability of an actor to change the incentive structures of other actors in order to bring about outcomes.
11、理性權力選擇框架的應用
A rational choice framework of power can be used to model a wide range of social interactions where actors have the ability to exert power over others. For example, a “powerful” actor can take options away from another’s choice set; can change the relative costs of actions; can change the likelihood that a given action will lead to a given outcome; or might simply change the other’s beliefs about its incentive structure.
As with other models of power, this framework is neutral as to the use of “coercion”. For example: a threat of violence can change the likely costs and benefits of different actions; so can a financial penalty in a “voluntarily agreed” contract, or indeed a friendly offer.
12、盧克斯觀點：一維權力的三要素
The seminal work of Steven Lukes’ Power: A radical view （1974）was developed from a talk he was once invited to give in Paris. In this brief book, Lukes outlines two dimensions through which power had been theorized in the earlier part of the twentieth century （dimensions 1 and 2 below） which he criticized as being limited to those forms of power that could be seen. To these he added a third “critical” dimension which built upon insights from Gramsci and Althusser. In many ways this work evolves alongside of the writing of Foucault and serves as a good introduction to his thoughts on power.
One-dimensional:
1.Power is decision making
2.Exercised in formal institutions
3.Measure it by the outcomes of decisions
In his own words, Lukes states that the “one-dimensional view of power involves a focus on behavior in the making of decisions on issues over which there is an observable conflict of （subjective） interests, seen as express policy preferences, revealed by political participation”.
13、二維權力
Two-dimensional: One-dimensional plus:
1.Decision making & agenda-setting
2.Institutions & informal influences
3.Measure extent of informal influence
Techniques used by two-dimensional power structures:
1.Influence
2.Inducement
3.Persuasion
4.Manipulation
5.Authority
6.Coercion
7.Direct force
14、三維權力的六要素
Three-dimensional: including aspects of One-dimensional & Two-dimensional, plus:
1.Shapes preferences via values, norms, ideologies
2.All social interaction involves power because ideas operate behind all language and action
3.Not obviously measurable: we must infer its existence （focus on language）
4.Ideas or values that ground all social and political activity, e.g. religious ideals （Christianity, secularism）, Self-interest for economic gain
5.These become routine—we don’t consciously “think” of them
6.Political ideologies inform policy making without being explicit, e.g. neoliberalism
15、政治權力及傑出人物統治論
Political power can simply be defined as the power to influence. The power to influence is essentially the power to control. When pertaining to political matters, the most influential people in any form of government have the most power. The underlying argument is who has the most influence. Is it the elite or is it the majority?
There are four theories of who truly governs. The first theory is clearly elitism. Karl Marx has said that all governments in any shape or form are controlled by whichever class dominates the economy. In all societies there is an economic struggle between two major classes. Although the working class is the majority, they have the least political power. This is solely because they have less money than the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie on the other hand dominate the working class economically simply because they own the factories where the working class works. The theory also represents the government as a machine designed to favor to the dominant classes’ interest. This is why a Marxist would believe that it is pointless to study a government because it has none of its own power. It runs on whoever feeds it, and in this case it is the bourgeoisie.
16、統治理論：廣義傑出人物統治論
Another theory of who truly governs is similar to elitism. It states that the non-governmental elites have the most political power. This time the term “elites” go beyond the bourgeoisie. These elites are composed of corporate leaders, high ranking military officers, and a small group of political leaders. Other groups can be added, such as the leaders of the media, labor leaders and the heads of special interest groups. Many more groups can be added but the basic underlying idea of this theory is that a very small group of high status officials not involved in government contains the majority of political power.
17、統治理論：官僚統治論
The third theory of who truly governs tends to sway from the first two theories. It states that political power is concentrated within some of the people who actually run the government, the bureaucrats. Because the bureaucrats are appointed officials, it separates itself even farther apart from the other theories. The bureaucrats are only influenced by the people that appoint them. This is why the political power is contained within the government.
18、統治理論：精英階層和大眾共同統治
The fourth and final theory of who truly governs can be described as a combination of the first three theories. It delves into the dominance of power among the elite themselves. All of the elite groups have a certain amount of political control, and they themselves are responsive to their followers’ interests. Their followers being the majority have the most political power in this theory because they influence the elite. If the majority isn’t happy, the elite won’t be elite anymore. Majoritarianism and Elitism politics represent two ends of the spectrum of political thought. The four theories of who governs are clearly from an elitist’s point of view. The majority is influenced by the mass media, and it is rare to find anyone with their own ideas. The majority is told what they want.
19、掌權者的文化
The idea of unmarked categories originated in feminism. The theory analyzes the culture of the powerful. The powerful comprise those people in society with easy access to resources, those who can exercise power without considering their actions. For the powerful, their culture seems obvious; for the powerless, on the other hand, it remains out of reach, élite and expensive.
The unmarked category can form the identifying mark of the powerful. The unmarked category becomes the standard against which to measure everything else. For most Western readers, it is posited that if a protagonist’s race is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is Caucasian; if a sexual identity is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is heterosexual; if the gender of a body is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that it is male; if a disability is not indicated, it will be assumed by the reader that the protagonist is able bodied, just as a set of examples.
One can often overlook unmarked categories. Whiteness forms an unmarked category not commonly visible to the powerful, as they often fall within this category. The unmarked category becomes the norm, with the other categories relegated to deviant status. Social groups can apply this view of power to race, gender, and disability without modification:the able body is the neutral body; the man is the normal status.
20、國家的自主決定權
The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to, often by plebiscite. It is commonly used to justify the aspirations of an ethnic group that self-identifies as a nation toward forming an independent sovereign state, but it equally grants the right to reject sovereignty and join a larger multi-ethnic state.
Although there is a consensus that international law recognizes the principle of self-determination, the principle does not, by itself, define which group is a nation, which groups are entitled to sovereignty, or what territory they should get for that purpose. Its application in international law creates a tension between this principle and the principles of territorial integrity and non-intervention in internal affairs.
21、國家自主決定權是民族主義運動的典型要求
The principle of self-determination formally expresses a central claim of nationalism, namely the entitlement of each nation to its own nation state. It has itself become a typical demand of nationalist movements. However, the formal expression of the principle came later than the nationalist movements and the first nation-states. In the 20th century, the principle was central to the process of decolonization, but its use is not limited to contesting colonialist or imperialist rule.
22、政治個人主義
In political philosophy, the individualist theory of government holds that the state should take a merely defensive role by protecting the liberty of each individual to act as he or she wishes as long as he or she does not infringe on the same liberty of another. This contrasts with collectivist political theories, where, rather than leaving the individual to pursue his or her own ends, the state ensures that the individual serves the interests of society when taken as a whole. The term has also been used to describe “individual initiative” and “freedom of the individual” in general, perhaps best described by the French term “laissez faire,” a verb meaning “to let the people do” （for themselves what they know how to do）.
23、政治個人主義者眼中的社會
For some political individualists, who hold a view known as methodological individua-lism, the word “society” can never refer to anything more than a very large collection of individuals. Society does not have an existence above or beyond these individuals, and thus cannot be properly said to carry out actions, since actions require intentionality, which requires an agent, and society as a whole cannot be properly said to possess agency; only individuals can be agents. The same holds for the government. Under this view, a government is composed of individuals; despite that democratic governments are elected by popular vote, the fact remains that all of the activities of government are carried out by means of the intentions and actions of individuals. Strictly speaking, the government itself does not act. For example, the point is sometimes made that “we” have decided to enact a certain policy, and sometimes this usage is used to imply that the entity known as “society” supports the policy and thus it is justified.
24、政治個人主義在實踐中
In practice, individualists are chiefly concerned with protecting individual autonomy against obligations imposed by social institutions （such as the state）. Many individua-lists pay particular attention to protecting the liberties of the minority against the wishes of the majority and see the individual as the smallest minority. For example, individualists oppose democratic systems unless constitutional protections exist that do not allow individual liberty to be diminished by the interests of the majority. These concerns encompass both civil and economic liberties. One typical concern is opposition to any concentration of commercial and industrial enterprise in the hands of the state, and the municipality. The principles upon which this opposition is based are mainly two:that popularly-elected representatives are not likely to have the qualifications, or the sense of responsibility, required for dealing with the multitudinous enterprises, and the large sums of public money involved in civic administration; and that the “health of the state” depends upon the exertions of individuals for their personal benefit （who, “like cells”, are the containers of the life of the body）. Individualism may take a radicalism approach, as in individualist anarchism.