Power and Participation

¶ … traits are within groups of people that account for both rebellion and inactivity. The principle question that this theme is based on is: why do certain groups of people rebel under situations of social and political repression, whereas others do not? Logically, one would expect everyone to rebel in situations of oppressions. However, sometimes the nature of repression can be so complete that rebellion is not considered feasible by certain groups of people.

Still, the author posits the notion and primary theme that there are facets regarding the relationship and manifestation of power that account for this difference of action (and inaction) in certain groups. The author utilizes many different theoretical approaches towards the elucidation of several points about power to buttress his theme that power is the central factor in the choice between inactivity and revolt. He cites quotations from various authors and paraphrases their work in denoting three dimensions of power.

The first is behavior based on which one group of people can get another to do things that the latter does not innately want to do. The second dimension of power revolves around the exclusion of certain individuals or issues from the "decision-making process" (Author, p. 7), whereas the third dimension is so pervasive that an empowered group can actually change or determine the wants and needs of another. It is important to realize the increasing completeness or pervasiveness of these dimensions of power.

Additionally, the author discusses the various mechanisms of power that relate to each of these three dimensions. In terms of the first dimension of power, the primary mechanism is the valued issues and "political resources" (Author, p. 12) in dispute. The principle mechanism for the second dimension of power is customs and procedures which are existent and always favor the empowered group. These customs disenfranchise the other group. The chief mechanism for the third dimension of power includes utilizing various strategies for overcoming "latent conflict" (Author, p.13).

This mechanism is closely related to shaping the way that people think through the usage of a variety of social constructs including language, government, etc. The author's principle point is marshaling this sort of evidence is to demonstrate by controlling he various means of society, economic, social, cognitive, and others, those who are in power can effectively sway the tendencies of those who are disenfranchised.

At the root of this principle is a degree of apathy in which individuals from the latter group cannot conceive of things being any different, or of taking some sort of action to produce a tangible difference in their lives. This sort of effect is produced on the disenfranchised especially when those that are in control purposefully reinforce constructs to foster inactivity. Additionally,.