��������������������������������ty Th������������������
The conceptual framework of social complexity is a way to analyze the politics and economics of society ( Mitchell , 1992 ). Complexity theory itself is often associated with systems theory with homoeostasis , or systems , which correct themselves through feedback ����������� ������ � �������� ������ ����������������������������� . Social systems are complex because reality is not as tidy as the linear paradigm purports . This nonlinear paradigm is dynamic , as its behavior is steered by interactions between the elements themselves within the system . viii This paper , therefore , uses complexity theory ’ s self-regulating feature called feedback , to help us view systemic power in a new way .
�����
There are three faces , or dimensions , of power . ix Across each face , Friedrich ( 1941 , p . 589-91 ) describes the “ anticipated reactions ,” very much like feedback , where there is an anticipation of expected reactions to activity , i . e ., from the public . Dahl ( 1974 , p . 202-203 ) defines power in the first face linearly , as “ A has ���������� B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do .” x Of course , ( Lukes , 2005 ) argues that this is merely a one-dimensional view of power — simply , a behavioral attribute with the ability to modify an individual ’ s behavior within a decision-making process . In addition , the individual who has the power in a situation is the individual who prevails .
Likewise , for Bachrach and Baratz ( 1962 ) the second face of power is not only forcing B to do something that he or she �������� want to do , but also �������� ��� B from doing what she ����� to do ( Digeser , 1992 ). xi This second face is about how power can limit the range of discussion xii ( Bachrach � Baratz , 1962 , p . 948 ). Lukes ( 2005 , p . 20 ) finds that power can be viewed “ to the extent that a person or group -- consciously or unconsciously – creates , or reinforces , barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts , t hat p erson o r g roup h as power .”
Furthermore , Lukes ’ ( 2005 ) third face explores why people act willingly against their own interests . In addition , it asks how the powerful can alter its relationship with the powerless in a way that the powerless end up behaving as the powerful wishes , even without forcible constraint or coercion . This is a more nonlinear face of power describing the elite ’ s deliberate and willful intent to manipulate through forming ideological preferences , i . e , values and norms , where reality is considered routine because we do not knowingly “ think ” of these norms . This reveals a nonlinear , non-unidirectional , and non-visible understanding of power . xiii Furthermore , Lukes associates “ power as domination ,” which can happen through explicit coercive means , or unconscious mechanisms .
��������������
Stone ( 1980 ) defines systemic po�
wer as that “ dimension of power in which durable features of a socio-economic system ( the situational element ) confer advantages and disadvantages on groups ( the intergroup element ) in ways predisposing public officials to favor some interests at the expense of others ( indirect element ).” xiv Therefore , it is invisible , but has apparent outcomes — complexity theorists call it �������� .
In Stone ’ s description of systemic power , the “ agents ,” “ components ,” or “ elements ,” parts of the socioeconomic system , are interconnected , and lead to large-scale emergent . xv Some gain or lose , and public
21