1 托夫勒观点: 权力
Alvin Toffler’s Powershift argues that the three main kinds of power are violence, wealth, and knowledge with other kinds of power being variations of these three(typically knowledge). Each successive kind of power represents a more flexible kind of power. Violence can only be used negatively, to punish. Wealth can be used both negatively (by withholding money) and positively (by advancing/spending money). Knowledge can be used in these ways but, additionally, can be used in a transformative way. Such examples are, sharing knowledge on agriculture to ensure that everyone is capable of supplying himself and his family of food; allied nations with a shared identity forming with the spread of religious or political philosophies, or one can use knowledge as a tactical/strategic superiority in intelligence (information gathering). Toffler argues that the very nature of power is currently shifting. Throughout history, power has often shifted from one group to another; however, at this time, the dominant form of power is changing. During the Industrial Revolution, power shifted from a nobility acting primarily through violence to industrialists and financiers acting through wealth. Of course, the nobility used wealth just as the industrial elite used violence, but the dominant form of power shifted from violence to wealth. Today, a Third Wave of shifting power is taking place with wealth being overtaken by knowledge.

2 哲学与政治
Philosophers have forever been concerned with political and social matters. Not only have they asked how politics work but mainly, how they should work. These philosophers have been concerned with the nature and justification of political obligation and authority and the goals of political action. Although their doctrines have differentiated, and numerous have been utopian in concept, they have all shared the same ideas and convictions that it is the political philosopher’s duty to distinguish between what is and what ought to be, between existing political institutions and potentially more humane institutions. Throughout the centuries, philosophers have debated over the moral issues involved in the search for the ideal society. Three influential philosophers in this field have been Plato, John Locke and Karl Marx. Their philosophies and utopian states have continually influenced political actions and thoughts throughout the ages.

3 权力的概念
Much of the recent sociological debate over power revolves around the issue of the enabling nature of power. A comprehensive account of power can be found in Steven Luke’s Power: A Radical View where he discusses the three dimensions of power. Thus, power can be seen as various forms of constraint on human action, but also as that which makes action possible, although in a limited scope. Much of this debate is related to the works of the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1984), who sees power as “a complex strategic situation in a given society (social setting)”. Being deeply structural, his concept involves both constraint and enablement.
The imposition need not involve coercion (force or threat of force). Thus “power” in the sociological sense subsumes both physical power and political power, including many of the types listed at power. In some ways it more closely resembles what everyday English-speakers call“influence”, although some authors make a sharp distinction between influence as a more general concept, and power as intended influence.
More generally, one could define “power” as the more or less unilateral ability (real or perceived) or potential to bring about significant change, usually in people’s lives, through the actions of oneself or of others.
The exercise of power seems endemic to humans as social and gregarious beings.

4 权力分析
One of the broader modern views of the importance of power in human activity comes from thework of Michel Foucault, who has said, “Power is everywhere...because it comes from everywhere.”
—Aldrich, Robert and Wotherspoon, Gary (Eds.), 2001
Foucault’s analysis of power is founded on his concept “technologies of power”. Discipline is a complex bundle of power technologies developed during the 18th and 19th centuries as Foucault demonstrated in Discipline and Punish. For Foucault, power is exercised with intention. Instead of analyzing the difficult problem of who has which intentions, he focused on what is intersubjectively accepted knowledge about how to exercise power. For Foucault, power is actions upon others’ actions in order to interfere with them. Foucault does not recur to violence, but says that power presupposes freedom in the sense that power is not enforcement, but ways of making people by themselves behave in other ways than they else would have done. One way of doing this is by threatening with violence. However, suggesting how happy people will become if they buy an off-roader is an exercise of power as well; marketing provides is a large body of knowledge of techniques for how to (try to) produce such behavior.

5 权力分析和实施
Power manifests itself in a relational manner: one cannot meaningfully say that a particular socialactor “has power” without also specifying the role of other parties in the social relationship.Because power operates both relationally and reciprocally, sociologists speak of the balance of power between parties to a relationship: all parties to all relationships have some power: the sociological examination of power concerns itself with discovering and describing the relative strengths: equal or unequal, stable or subject to periodic change. Sociologists usually analyze relationships in which the parties have relatively equal or nearly equal power in terms ofconstraint rather than of power. Thus “power” has a connotation of unilateralism. If this were notso, then all relationships could be described in terms of “power”, and its meaning would be lost.One can sometimes distinguish primary power: the direct and personal use of force for coercion; and secondary power, which may involve the threat of force or social constraint, most likely involving third-party exercisers of delegated power.

6 权力来源
Power may be held through:

Delegated authority (for example in the democratic process)

Social class

Personal or group charisma

Ascribed power (acting on perceived or assumed abilities, whether these bear testing or not)

Expertise (Ability, Skills) (the power of medicine to bring about health; another famous

example would be “in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king” —Desiderius Erasmus)

Persuasion (direct, indirect, or subliminal)

Knowledge (granted or withheld, shared or kept secret)

Money (financial influence, control of labor, control through ownership, etc.)

Force (violence, military might, coercion)

Moral persuasion (possibly including religion)

Application of non-violence

Operation of group dynamics (such as the science of public relations)

Social influence of tradition (compare ascribed power)

In relationships; domination/submissiveness

7 权力六大基础之一: 合法权、 参考权、 专家权
Social psychologists French and Raven, in a now-classic study, developed a schema of five categories of power which reflected the different bases or resources that power holders rely upon. One additional base (informational) was later added.
Legitimate Power:
Legitimate Power refers to power of an individual because of the relative position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. Legitimate Power is formal authority delegated to the holder of the position. It is usually accompanied by various attributes of power such as uniforms, offices etc. This is the most obvious and also the most important kind of power. Referent Power:

Referent Power means the power or ability of individuals to attract others and build loyalty. It’s based on the charisma and interpersonal skills of the power holder. Here the person under power desires to identify with these personal qualities, and gains satisfaction from being an accepted follower. Nationalism or Patriotism counts towards an intangible sort of referent power as well. For example, soldiers fight in wars to defend the honor of the country. This is the second least obvious power, but the most effective.

Expert Power:
Expert Power is an individual’s power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization’s needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified. This type of power is further broken down later on as Information Power.

8 权力六大基础之二: 信息权、 报酬权、 强制权
Information Power:
While the difference between expert power and information power is subtle, people with this type of power are well-informed, up-to-date and also have the ability to persuade others. Another difference would be that people with Expert Power are perceived by his/her image of expertise to show credibility (i.e. a qualified doctor in a doctor uniform), while one with Information Power does not have a strict need to“look the part of a professional”, but they must keep up to date with new research, and have confidence in debating, or are persuasive.
Reward Power:
Reward Power depends upon the ability of the power wielder to confer valued material rewards; it refers to the degree to which the individual can give others a reward of some kind such as benefits, time off, desired gifts, promotions or increases in pay or responsibility. This power is obvious but also ineffective if abused. People who abuse reward power can become pushy or be reprimandedfor being too forthcoming or “moving things too quickly”.
Coercive Power:
Coercive Power means the application of negative influences onto employees. It might refer to the ability to demote or to withhold other rewards. It’s the desire for valued rewards or the fear of having them withheld that ensures the obedience of those under power. Coercive Power tends to be the most obvious but least effective form of power as it builds resentment and resistance within the targets of Coercive Power.

9 权力与知识
Foucault’s works analyze the link between power and knowledge. He outlines a form of covert power that works through people rather than only on them. Foucault claims belief systems gain momentum (and hence power) as more people come to accept the particular views associated with that belief system as common knowledge (hegemony). Such belief systems define their figures of authority, such as medical doctors or priests in a church. Within such a belief system—or discourse—ideas crystallize as to what is right and what is wrong, what is normal and what is deviant. Within a particular belief system certain views, thoughts or actions become unthinkable.

These ideas, being considered undeniable “truths”, come to define a particular way of seeing theworld, and the particular way of life associated with such “truths” becomes normalized. Thissubtle form of power lacks rigidity and other discourses can contest it. Indeed, power itself lacks any concrete form, occurring as a locus of struggle. Resistance, through defiance, defines power and hence becomes possible through power. Without resistance, power is absent, but it would be a mistake, some recent writers insist, to attribute to Foucault an oppositional power-resistance schema as is found in many older, foundationalist theoreticians. This view “grants” individualityto people and other agencies, even if it is assumed a given agency is part of what power works in or upon. Still, in practice Foucault often seems to deny individuals this agency, which is contrasted with sovereignty (the old model of power as efficacious and rigid).

10 权力的理性选择框架
Game theory, with its foundations in the theory of Rational Choice, is increasingly used in various disciplines to help analyze power relationships. One rational choice definition of power is given by Keith Dowding in his book Power.
In rational choice theory, human individuals or groups can be modeled as “actors” who choose from a “choice set” of possible actions in order to try and achieve desired outcomes. An actor’s“incentive structure” comprises (its beliefs about) the costs associated with different actions in the choice set, and the likelihoods that different actions will lead to desired outcomes.
In this setting we can differentiate between:

Outcome power—the ability of an actor to bring about or help bring about outcomes; Social power—the ability of an actor to change the incentive structures of other actors in order to bring about outcomes.

11 理性权力选择框架的应用
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 financialpenalty in a “voluntarily agreed” contract, or indeed a friendly offer.

12 卢克斯观点: 一维权力的三要素
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

Exercised in formal institutions

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 二维权力
Two-dimensional: One-dimensional plus:

Decision making & agenda-setting

Institutions & informal influences

Measure extent of informal influence

Techniques used by two-dimensional power structures:

Influence

Inducement

Persuasion

Manipulation

Authority

Coercion

Direct force

14 三维权力的六要素
Three-dimensional: including aspects of One-dimensional & Two-dimensional, plus:

Shapes preferences via values, norms, ideologies

All social interaction involves power because ideas operate behind all language and action

Not obviously measurable: we must infer its existence (focus on language)

Ideas or values that ground all social and political activity, e.g. religious ideals (Christianity,

secularism), Self-interest for economic gain

These become routine—we don’t consciously “think” of them

Political ideologies inform policy making without being explicit, e.g. neoliberalism

15 政治权力及杰出人物统治论
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 统治理论: 广义杰出人物统治论
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 统治理论: 官僚统治论
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 统治理论: 精英阶层和大众共同统治
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.