Asimov and the 3 Dimensions of Power. Obviously, the concept of power is a very important part of human life. And obviously, a good deal of Isaac Asimovs work is about power. E.g. the Robot series and the Foundation series are, among other things, about the power to decide the destiny of humanity. In Asimovs books, power is never just brute force. It is bit more subtle. It is mentalistic robots that bend human thinking in their (robots) prefered direction. It is the Hari Seldon like philosophers, who gain the (power) advantage by seeing just a little further. Actually, come to think of it, Asimov follows Steven Lukes "power - a radical view" quite nicely. According to Lukes there are three dimensions of power. Describing increasing levels of sophistication. I.e. -------------------------- Lukes - One dimensional view of power. A has power of B to the extend that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do. The stress here is on the study of concrete, observable behaviour. Involves a focus on behaviour 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. Test the hypothesis of a ruling class, if there are cases involving key political decisions in which the preferences of the hypothetical ruling elite run counter to those of any other likely group that might be suggested and in such cases, the preferences of the elite regularly prevail. Conflict in this view, is assumed to be crucial in providing an experimental test of power attributions. -------------------------- Lukes - The two dimensional view. To the extend that a person or group - consciously or unciously - creates or reinforces barries to the the public airing of policy conflicts, that person or group has power. A set of predominant values, beliefs, rituals, and institutional procedures (rules of the game) that operate systematically and consistantly to the benefit of certain persons and groups at the expense of others. This power embraces coercion, influence, authority, force and manipulation. Power may be, and often is, exercised by confining the scope of decision making to relatively safe issues. A non-decision is a decision that results in suppression or twarthing of a latent or manifest challenge to the values or interests of the decision maker. A key issue being one that involves a genuine challenge to the resources of power or authority of currently dominate the the process by which policy outputs in the system are determined. The two dimensional view incorporates into the analysis of power relations the control over the agenda of politics and of the ways in which potential issues are kept out of the political process. -------------------------- Lukes - The three dimensional view. A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also excercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants. That is to secure their compliance by controlling their very wants. Controlling their thoughts and desires. In modern societies that is through the control of information, through the mass media, and through the process of socialisation. Almost the entire adult population has been subject to some degree of indoctrination through the schools. Actual conflict is not necessary for power. The most effective and insidious use of power is to prevent such a conflict from arising in the first place. It is not enough to find that there are grievances, which are denied into the political process. If the observer can uncover no grievances, then he can not assume there is a geuine consensus on the prevailing allocation of values. Perceptions, cognitions and preferences maybe shaped in such a form that people might accept the existing order of things, either because they can see nor imagine no alternative to it. To assume the absense of grivance equals genuine consensus is simply to rule out the possibility of false or manipulated consensus. -------------------------- Obviously, this is where chief Robopsychologist dr. Susan Calvin steps in :-) Susan Calvin, the star of US Robots and Mechanical Men inc. The woman with the acid charm and the steely character, the women who loves robots a lot - and men not that much. Simply, Asimov would have prefered her to design the robots to seek influence under Lukes dimension 3 of power! Never letting anyone know what is actually going on. No open conflict. No war. Just R.Giscard twisting a mind here and there for the greater cause. Actually it must follow from the 3 robots law that in order to avoid harm - you must avoid conflict. And conflict is certainly avoided in Lukes dimension 3. So if you, Susan Calvin and the robots, know the answers to a certain question, this must just be imprinted in society as a 3 dimensional power operation. Conflict comes when you (Susan Calvin, R. Daneel, R. Giscard etc) doesn't know the answer - or isn't interested in having a certain predetermined outcome. Then you can step down your power measures to dimensions 1 or 2. Or step out of a conflict altogether. Allowing an issue to surface, or even allowing conflict. But somehow Asimov wouldn't really have believed that it could ever come to that? Or would he? To me it seems that (the later) Asimov only allowed conflict as a part of a greater scheme, where the conflict serves as a catalyst for the prefered (robot) solution? He wouldn't really think that someone could outsmart the likes of Susan Calvin or R.Daneel? -Simon Simon Laub www.silanian.subnet.dk