"Power serves to create power. Powerlessness serves to re-enforce
powerlessness"(Gaventa,1980:256). Such is the essence of the on going relationship
between the Powerful and the Powerless of the Appalachian Valley where acquiescence of
the repressed has become not only common practice but a way of life and a means of
survival. In his novel Power and Powerlessness, John Gaventa examines the oppressive and
desperate situation of the Appalachian coal miners under the autocratic power of absentee
land-owners, local elites, and corrupt union leaders. His analyses is based on Lukes
three-dimensional understanding of power from his book Power: A Radical View. Gaventa
applies the three notions of power to the politics of inequalities in the Appalachian
Valley and, while demonstrating the inadequacies of the first or 'pluralist' approach and
the merits of the second and particularly the third dimensions, asserts that the
interrelationship and reinforcing affect of all three dimensions is necessary for an in
depth understanding of the "total impact of power upon the actions [or inactions] and
conceptions of the powerless"(Gaventa:256)
This essay will examine Luke's three power dimensions and their applicability to
Gaventa's account of the inequities found in the valleys of the Cumberland Mountains.
Reasons for the mountain people's submission and non-participation will be recognized and
their nexus with the power relationship established. In this way, Gaventa's
dissatisfaction with the pluralist approach will be justified and the emphatic ability of
the other two dimensions to withhold issues and shape behaviour will be verified as
principal agents of Power and Powerlessness.
The one dimensional view of power is often called the 'pluralist' approach and
emphasizes the exercise of power through decision making and observable behaviour.
Robert Dahl, a major proponent of this view, defines power as occurring in a situation
where "A has power over B to the extent he can get B to do something that B would not
otherwise do"(Dahl as cited in Lukes, 1974:11). A's power therefore is defined in terms
of B and the extent to which A prevails is determined by its higher ratio of 'successes'
and 'defeats' over B.
Observable behaviour then becomes a key factor in the pluralist approach to power.
Dahl's Who Govern's? expresses the pluralist belief that the political arena is an open
system where everyone may participate and express grievances which in turn lead to
decision making. Those who propose alternatives and initiate issues which contribute to
the decision making process are demonstrating observable influence and control over those
who failed all together to express any interest in the political process.
The Pluralist approach assumes that in an open system, all people, not just the elite,
would participate in decision making if they felt strongly enough about an issue and
wanted their values to be expressed and represented. Non-participation therefore is
thought to express a lack of grievances and a consensus with the way the leaders are
already handling the system. Political inaction is not a problem within the
one-dimensional system, it merely reflects apathy of ordinary citizens with little
interest or knowledge for political matters, and their acceptance of the existing system
which they see as rewarding mutual benefits to society.
While politics is primarily an elite concern to the pluralist, ordinary people can have
a say if they become organized, and everyone has indirect influence through the right to
the franchise in the electoral process. Pluralism recognizes a heterogeneous society
composed of people belonging to various groups with differing and competing interests.
Conflict is therefore also recognized as not only an expected result but as a necessary
instrument which enables the determination of a ruling class in terms of who the winner
is. Dahl,(as cited in Lukes,1974:18) states:
Who prevails in decision-making seems the best
way to determine which individual and groups have
more power in social life because direct conflict
between actors presents a situation most approximating
an experimental test of their capacities to affect outcome.
Both Lukes and Gaventa put forward the notion that restricting your analyses of a power
situation to the one dimensional model can skew your conclusions. If you limit yourself
to this approach your study will be impaired by a pluralistic biased view of power.
Where the first dimension sees power in its manifest functions of decision making over
key issues raising observable conflict due to policies raised through political
participation, it ignores the unobservable mechanisms of power that are sometimes just
as or even more important.
Many times power is exercised to prevent an issue from being raised and to discourage
participation in the political arena. Potential issues and grievances are therefore not
voiced and to assume this means that they do not exist would be an outright deviation
from fact. By restricting analyses to what is expressed and to observable behaviour and
overt conflict only, you miss any preference not expressed because of fear of sanctions,
manipulation, coercion and force.
This critique of the behaviourial focus and the recognition of unobservable factors of
power is discussed in the two-dimensional view of power developed by Bachrach and Baratz
by which "power is exercised not just upon participants within the decision making
process but also towards the exclusion of certain participants and issues
altogether"(Schattsneider, as cited in Lukes,1974:16). This theory proposes that
political organizations develop a "mobilization of bias... in favour of the exploitation
of certain kinds of conflict and the suppression of others... some issues are organized
in while others are organized out"(Ibid.,16).
The first dimension claims there is an open system and although admitting that political
resources are not distributed equally, they are also not centralized in one groups hands.
Everyone has the opportunity to use other resources and be heard.
The second approach however, sees a monopolistic system of inequalities created and
maintained by the dominant power. The elite have the means and the political resources
to prevent political action that would not benefit themselves and to push forward those
that would. The Elite therefore determine the agenda of both decision making and
non-decision making and in so doing establish their dominance and the subordinance and
compliance of those on the bottom of the power hierarchy.
Although the two dimensional approach to power delves deeper than the first into the
nature of power and powerlessness by involving analyses of potential issues, grievances,
nondecision-making and non-participation, Both Lukes and Gaventa find that it is on the
same level as the first dimension in that it also emphasizes observable conflict only.
Of course it is true that the first does stress only overt while the second stresses both
overt and/or covert conflict. Nonetheless, an affinity between the two results in their
belief that where there is conflict, there is an element of power in decision making and,
for the second dimension, in nondecision-making. Barach and Baratz (as cited in
Lukes,1974:19) states that if "there is no conflict, overt or covert, the presumption
must be that there is consensus on the prevailing allocation of values, in which case
nondecision-making is impossible." Here, there is obviously no consideration of latent
conflict or attention as to how interests not consciously articulated may fit into the
power relationship.
Lukes identifies manipulation and authority as two forms of power which do not
necessarily involve evident conflict. People abide by the power of authority because
they either respect or accept its legitimacy. Compliance to the power of manipulation
often goes unrecognized by the conformer because focus is placed on irrelevant matters
and the key aim is downplayed. In neither is there observable (overt or covert)
conflict, but latent conflict occurs because the individual may be agreeing to something
contrary to their interests without even knowing.
The three dimensional view of power then, criticizes the behaviourial focus of the first
two dimensions and adopts the consideration of hidden social forces and conflict which
exercise influence by shaping the consciousness of the individual or organization. This
view strays from the others in that it focuses not only on decisions and nondecisions but
on other ways to control the political agenda which are not made deliberately by the
choice of individuals or groups.
The third mechanism of power seeks to identify "the means through which power
influences, shapes or determines conceptions of necessities, possibilities, and
strategies of challenge in situation of conflict"(Gaventa,1980:15). In other words, it
involves specifying how A gets B to believe and choose to act in a way that reinforces
the bias of the system, advancing the cause of A and impairing that of B, usually in the
form of compliance.
Such processes can take place in a direct and intended way through media and
communication. 'A' takes control of the information channels and 'B' is socialized into
accepting, believing and even supporting the political notions instilled by 'A'. The
shaping of individual's conceptions can also take place indirectly or even
unintentionally through ones membership in a social structure. Patterns of behaviour,
norms and accepted standards apparent in the action and inaction of the group are
automatically adopted. "Social legitimations are developed around the dominant, and
instilled as beliefs or roles in the dominated" (Gaventa,1980:15).
Passive acceptance of situations or circumstances that are in conflict with one's
interests occur even when the subordinated realise they are being repressed. They submit
quietly because of fear of sanctions but also because they have gone through a
"psychological adaptation to the state of being without power" (Gaventa:16). They
recognize their powerlessness and see no possibility to reverse it and therefore submit
to their hopeless situation with lethargic acceptance.
After continual defeat, the conceptions of the powerlessness may be altered as a learned
response. "Over time, the calculated withdrawal by 'B' may lead to an unconscious pattern
of withdrawal, maintained not by fear of power of 'A' but by a sense of powerlessness
within 'B', regardless of 'A's condition" (Gaventa, 1980:16). Although 'B' was
originally aware of their state of oppression, time has quelled the initial fear and has
desensitized their drive to remain unconstrained and autonomous. Without even
realizing, B continues to submit, more as a form of habit then as a response to a
particular situation.
As a further adaptive response "the sense of powerlessness may also lead to a greater
susceptibility to the internalisation of the values, beliefs or rules of the game of the
powerful"(Gaventa, 1980:17). What may have once been strong convictions to a people are
systematically lost and the beliefs of the ruling class are accepted in silence, not only
because of a sense of powerlessness but because they have been indoctrinated to condone
whatever the powerful put forward.
Gaventa applies Luke's three dimensional theory of power to the case of the Central
Appalachian valley in the United States. He argues that the dimensions of power can be
used to better understand the pattern of quiescence that has been occurring in this
region of indisputable inequities for over a generation. The pluralist approach is
established as inadequate in its attempt to interpret power relationships alone and the
implementation of the other two dimensions is found to be essential to explain the
situation in the Appalachian mountains.
The History of Central Appalachia has developed much like that of a primitive country
under the influence of colonization by a dominant world power. It is one in which an
isolated, agrarian society has sparked the interest of the industrialized world as having
economic potential, and has consequently been established as a dependant and thrust into
a rapid series of transformation to bring it up to modern standards. Productivity and
economic pursuits are the principle concern while the people and their culture are more
of a hindrance than a priority. They are expected to shift right along with the rest of
the changes. Their traditional way of life is subsequently threatened, altered, and
eventually irretrievably lost.
By the late nineteenth century, the economic potential emanating from the vast wealth of
natural coal resources of the Appalachian Mountains were well recognized and
Middlesborough, a once quiet rural community, had experienced an economic boom and grown
into the industrial mining centre labelled the 'Magic City of the South'. The entire
enterprise had been established under the singular leadership of the American Association
Ltd., of London. Millions of dollars were pumped into the area but because of the
ownership monopoly and primarily foreign investors, the mountain people themselves reaped
little or none of the benefits.
Their agrarian based mainstay was threatened and destroyed as the 'Anglo-American
enterprise' expropriated acres and acres of mineral-rich land. "The acquisition of land
is the first step in the process of economic development and the establishment of power."
(Gaventa,1980:53). It was also the first step in the subordination of the mountaineers.
Losing their land meant a change in lifestyle from a largely independent group of farmers
to a group of coal miners dependent upon the Company for a salary.
Mountaineers were most often 'voluntarily' bought out. Few cases of actual conflict
occurred and the people's land was taken virtually without challenge or opposition to a
new order. Often the land was sold to the Company for a price far below its worth. The
inherent value of the mountaineer's land went unknowing to them while the Association who
knew full well of the highly valued mineral-rich soil, took advantage of the situation
and bought it for very little.
If this 'acquisition' of land were studied using only the first dimension of power, the
Company would be comparable to A who's power is defined by its higher ratio of
'successes' over B's 'defeats'". One would recognize that the Company demonstrated
observable control and influence over the Appalachian people but would be justified in
their actions.
The lack of challenge on the mountaineer's (or B's) part would be seen as an expression
of consensus to the take-over of their land. Since few grievances were expressed it
would be assumed that the issue was not of enough importance to the people who therefore
did not organize to put forward any alternatives. The Association had the initiative to
propose issues and contribute to decision making while the Middlesborough citizens were
apathetic to what was going on. The Company's 'successes' in decision making enhanced
their power, legitimizing them as more fit to rule.
Limiting yourself to this analyses would dismiss many factors that led to the quiescence
of the mountain people, and would prevent a deeper understanding of this case. Using
Luke's second dimension of power, the non-challenge to the land-takeover would not be
viewed as apathy on the part of the ordinary people but as the result of unobservable
forces and covert conflict working to prevent their expression of scepticism and dispute.
This would support the view that within the political organizations of Middlesborough
there was a "mobilization of bias". When distribution of the land was decided by the
court, it most often went to the highest bidder. The Company held obvious power in its
economic advantage leaving no doubt to anyone, including the courts, who would win out.
By basing ownership rights on economic capabilities, challenge on behalf of the
mountaineers was made scarce and considered a futile effort. In this way the issue of
Company ownership was 'organized in' and the people's land claims were 'organized out'.
The second dimension therefore recognizes elite accommodation occurring in a system
which pluralists claim to be 'open'. It is viewed as a system where inequalities are
created and maintained by allowing the dominant class to determine the decision-making
agenda, therefore establishing the quiescence of the subordinated.
The first dimension assumes that lack of overt conflict means the consensus of the
mountaineers to their land loss, and the second would have assumed consensus if there
were no observable overt or covert conflict, but still another dimension is essential to
get to the actual root of consensus. The third dimension considers the possibility of
latent conflict where the people's wants and beliefs are unkowingly shaped to establish a
consensus to that which is contrary to their interests, but not recognized as such.
The Middlesborough workers developed no consciousness that saw themselves as being
exploited. The authority presented to them by the multi-million dollar enterprise of the
American Association Ltd., of London was accepted as an overwhelming but legitimate power
structure not to be questioned. In the case of authority, "B complies because he
recognizes that A's command is reasonable in terms of his own values and because it has
been arrived at through a legitimate and reasonable procedure"(Lukes,1974:18). The
people complied because the Association was put forward as an enterprise which valued
harmony, as they did, and would compensate them financially for the land.
Manipulation, however, was the key in convincing the mountaineers of the Association's
legitimacy. The people were payed far too little for what the land was worth. They were
deprived of reaping future benefits because the Company neglected to inform them of its
true value and their aim to gain millions in profits. Instead they focused only on the
irrelevant matter of what insignificant sum of money would satisfy the people into giving
up their land which was, at the time, of no real apparent value.
With manipulation, "compliance is forthcoming in the absence of recognition on the
complier's part either of the source or the exact nature of the demand upon
him"(Lukes,1974:18). I highly doubt that the people would have so quietly handed over
their land if they had realised that, at the same time, they were handing over their
traditional way of life, and in so doing, hastening its extinction. How were they to
know that this was only the first step to becoming dependants of the Company and that to
make a living they would be forced to work under the oppressive conditions of a higher
power on land that had once been their own.
After the acquisition of land and the initial economic boom, conditions worsened for the
mountain people and a set of stable controls was necessary in order to maintain the
system the Association had created and in turn, their position of dominance. As
Middlesborough developed into a Company Town, the absentee and unitary control exercised
by the British owners grew to ensure the dependence of all upon it. They owned not only
most of the land but controlled the town's key factors of production, requiring even
independent companies to function under their terms. As was mentioned earlier, the
people who had once been independent in earning a living for themselves were now required
to work as miners and labourers under the autocracy of a huge enterprise. Even small
entrepreneurs now found themselves answering to the higher power of the Association.
Although the Company had created many jobs for the people, inequalities developed as the
absentee owners ,or upper class, extracted wealth from the region leaving few of the
profits to be distributed among the workers themselves. Within the Appalachian area
itself there developed a local elite who ranked next in the class hierarchy. "They were
the men of wealth, and fine backgrounds, and politics was not new for
them"(Gaventa,1980:59). They were usually those in positions of political leadership
where they could benefit the company and promote its best interests. Next were a class
of small entrepreneurs and professionals who were attracted to the booming city by its
promising commercial future. The bottom of the hierarchy consisted of labourers, miners
and other manual labour workers. This class was composed mainly of those who were
originally from the region and had come from a rural background, while the 'upper
classes' had been derived primarily of those attracted to the area because of its
economic potential. "[Mobility] was of a horizontal nature, the coming together in one
area of various representatives of pre-existing strata from other
areas"(Gaventa,1980:57).
The workers were therefore destined to poverty and inequality, but also had to endure
such things as poor and even dangerous working conditions with few health benefits and
little compensation. And one cannot forget the ongoing demise of their valley as entire
mountain sides were stripped away and the air and water were blackened with millions of
tiny coal particles.
Why then, in this state of economic, social and even environmental depravation did the
people not cry out with enough strength to be heard? While nearby mining communities
experiencing similar conditions responded with militant, collective organizations,
Middlesborough expressed grievances but never took the form of organized action or went
as far as creating a consciousness of the situation. The first, second and third
dimensions of power would give different reasons for this in answering how the
Association was able to maintain the new order they had created and the quiescence of a
people amongst their condition of poverty and inequality.
The pluralist approach would recommend using the democratic political process of the
electoral system in determining the legitimacy of those in power and of their policies
and practices. If the leaders who have been elected by the people and for the people do
not voice concerns about the existing system or the desire for change, it must be assumed
that there were no concerns but instead an overall approval of the status quo. The
people of Middlesborough had a choice between local and 'Company' candidates and with few
exceptions continued to place their support in the latter. Even within their own unions
where leadership had become increasingly dictatorial and Company biased, the workers
remained loyal to the existing leaders and opposed the reform movement. By considering
only the face value of voting practices, one would have to agree that the Appalachian
miners appear to be in accordance with the management of the existing system and their
place within it. The second dimension of power would disagree, however, and would
explain the maintenance of the system and the compliance of the people as a result of the
Company's control over the political apparatus.
The longstanding political science maxim that low socio-economic status, poor education
and lack of information, translate into low political participation would be admissible
in the second dimensional view. The elite made up a closely-knit group of political
leaders in Appalachia who made decisions to advance their causes more than those of the
Mountaineers. "There was little regard for what law there was and money ruled the
day"(Gaventa,1980:59). This could help explain why Acts were passed to protect the
rights of the Company while demands for miners rights rarely even made it to the
courthouse. This supports the view that non-participation was not the result of apathy
but of a caste system, and that non-issues did not mean lack of grievances but lack of
opportunity to voice them.
This does not, however, support the documented cases where workers themselves did
participate, although minimally, and wilfully voted for candidates who were backers of
the Company. This discrepancy can, nevertheless, be explained with Bachrach and Baratz's
use of the term 'power' in its sense as "the securing of compliance through the threat of
sanctions"(Lukes,1974:17). Fear is thus presented as reason enough for the mountaineers
to express support in the form of a vote, even though it is not an accurate portrayal of
their position.
Traditional political dominance in the Clearfork Valley belonged to a group of local
landowners called 'The Family' who maintained their power position by serving as
"mediators between the Company and community gaining further power as brokers of favours
concerning jobs or home tenure"(Gaventa,1980:143). The Family was associated with
Company housing, welfare and employment, and in order to receive any benefits, one had to
be in their good graces. "Even now, people say those who live in company housing or work
in mines on company land are expected to vote in the Family's favour"(Gaventa,1982:143).
As brokers of benefits, they were also capable of taking them away and imposing
sanctions. Many, for example, would not spend their food stamps anywhere but the Company
store where prices were higher, with the fear that they would lose their welfare or even
be evicted as a consequence. The people were therefore quite aware that by accommodating
the Company leaders with their support, they stood a chance at being granted certain
benefits. Conversely, if one were to advance the cause of the reform movement and upset
the system, life could be made very difficult for them. "While the benefits of the
status quo are high for the powerful, the costs of challenge are potentially higher for
the powerless" (Gaventa, 1980: 145).
Lukes second dimension of power explains how the Association was able to maintain its
dominance and the quiescence of the people in terms of creating a political apparatus to
organize certain issues and participants in, and others out, as well as impose
recognizable sanctions. Further analyses, however, would require a look at the less
obvious controls which stemmed from the shaping and instilling of an ideological
apparatus in support of the Company among the ordinary citizens.
This would describe Luke's third dimension where power is executed in a more subtle way.
"It is one which shapes the outcome of 'choice' while allowing the chooser to believe
that, in fact, a choice has been made"(Gaventa,1980:63). The Mountaineers non-challenge
then, although appearing to be a freely chosen state of quiescence was actually more of
an imposed choice. By both deliberate and unintentional means, the consciousness of the
people was slanted to adopt the newly created Industrial ideology. Gaventa identifies
four observable ways that the Association was able to maintain their hegemony.
Conditioning the people's wants involved first a perversion of information which
exaggerated benefits of the industrial order and downplayed its oppressive effects upon
them. The mountain valley had drawn in millions of dollars, attracted all kinds of
investors, and created hundreds of jobs. In addition to this it also became "a vacation
ground for the wealthy"(Gaventa,1980:63) where luxurious hotels were built and a new
leisure class developed.
This lifestyle contrasted drastically with that of the labourers living in dilapidated
shacks, yet a working class consciousness failed to develop. This is because an equal
opportunity ethic was emphasized, stressing the belief that by hard work these benefits
were attainable by all. Social stratification was therefore accepted by most workers and
instead of participating equally, they chose to splurge what little money they had on
alcohol which was the only way they knew to "replicate the pattern (of enjoyment of
luxuries) in a lesser style"(Gaventa,1980:65). The appeal of the new industrial order
and its economic benefits was enhanced by the debasement of the mountaineer's traditional
way of life and culture. The two were in direct contrast so the glorification of the
first meant the degradation of the other. The old culture was criticized as a dirty,
primitive and meagre way of life while the new order was proclaimed for its virtues of
civilization and progress. Miners were therefore socialized to strive for membership
under the new order and to be ashamed of the old.
Imposing values took on a third form in the process of changing names of towns, schools
and other cultural establishments. Names that had been familiar to the old system were
changed to those derived from the new. Only Company workplaces and mines kept their
local names. In this way, ties to the past were severed and a clear path for a new
society was created. Symbols play an important part in the way people interpret their
society. By manipulating linguistic symbols the Association was shaping the societal
consciousness. "By the imposition of one identity over another in the cultural arena,
and by allowing names to lend the appearance of local possession in the workplace arena
(where there was none at all) the development of a counter-hegemony was made less
likely"(Gaventa,1980:67).
The creation of a set of controls in the form of political and ideological constructs
resulted "in a shaping and influencing away from (the mountaineer's) 'stock' to
participation in the ways and values of the new order"(Gaventa,1980:68). Conformity to
the extent where contradictions of conscience go unnoticed because workers are no longer
certain of their orientation occurred repeatedly and was the main reason challenge was
rare.
It must be noted, however, that the workers of Middlesborough were not completely inact
|