Systemic Power, Hegemony, and Invisible Influence in Society

Stone and Lukes on Invisible Power

Clarence Stone presents a model of power that identifies nonofficial and invisible types of power as more important than visible electoral clout. Social capital, cultural capital, and economic capital all fall within the province of this invisible type of power. Specifically, Stone identifies several types of unofficial and invisible power, including potential power, nondecision making, and anticipated reactions. Nondecision making is defined as "the capacity of elite groups to restrict the scope of community decision making," effectively "not making" decisions while making decisions of great importance to the disenfranchised community and the individuals who comprise it. Stone also refers to contextual forces that impact the manifestation and usefulness of power, and he conceptualizes "systemic power," defined as "the impact of the larger socioeconomic system on the predispositions of public officials" (979).

Steven Lukes presents his argument about power from the perspective of the oppressed. His central question concerns how persons in positions of power secure and ensure the compliance of the subjugated. Lukes also introduces an individual-level dimension to subjugation: the alteration of personal and community identity that accepts the projection of inferiority, thereby facilitating the oppressor. Both Lukes and Stone offer useful models for conceptualizing power in society, and the two approaches are not mutually exclusive.

Both theorists agree that power is not merely the exercise of force but the potential of having and wielding power. In this sense, the two frameworks present similar conceptualizations of power as having an invisible or nonofficial component.

Cultural Capital and Systemic Dominance

Power is linked to cultural capital in the sense that the dominant culture controls discourse and normative worldviews. The dominant culture also controls social codes and issues such as gender norms. These nonofficial or tacit types of power are not conveyed through authoritative means like legislation and legal codes; they are embedded in the system itself. Stone calls this "systemic power," and Lukes addresses the same phenomenon but with different language and terminology. Lukes uses the term hegemony more frequently, yet both authors refer to precisely the same types of systemic power.

Power is most simply defined as dominion over something, but both Stone and Lukes acknowledge other meaningful types of power, including cultural and social power. Neither theorist needs to spend much time on economic power explicitly, since economic power is inextricably linked with political power. Nevertheless, it is implied that economic power confers both legitimate and invisible forms of authority. Stone directly mentions the connection between those who possess economic clout and the disproportionate amount of power conferred upon them.

Economic Power and Marxist Parallels

Marxist ideology would frame the same argument in terms of the owners of the means of production possessing not just factories, but also power over workers, the power to control the labor market, and ultimately the power to shape economic conditions prevalent throughout society.

Stone and Lukes both acknowledge the role of power as the possession of the means by which to subjugate and to dominate political and economic spheres of influence. Both refer to nonofficial sources of power vis-à-vis cultural hegemony and patriarchy, even without having to mention patriarchy per se. Lukes does point out the role of power in unbalanced social hierarchies and cites Ibsen's A Doll's House to substantiate his claims. Both Stone and Lukes effectively distance power from things like electoral potency or even the possession of weapons. If power cannot be located in official positions alone, then it becomes crucial to locate it elsewhere.