Summary Of Power And Powerlessness By John Gaventa

In Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley, John Gaventa discusses three dimensions of power that are displayed to show how and why “rebellion occurs in a “democracy” but why, in the face of massive inequalities, it does not,” (p. xi) and why relationships “involving domination of a non-elite by an elite, does challenge to that domination not occur” (p. 3).
The one-dimensional, treats power in the “traditional plural approach,” saying that it “is understood primarily in terms of who participates, who gains and who prevails in decision-making about key issues” (p. vii). This approach focuses on behavior, the recognizing of it and participation in it. This approach says that once you recognize the behavior and
who is performing and participating in it, you will have the definition of power. The approach assumes several things. The first is that grievances have been recognized and steps have been taken to fix them. The second is that “decision-making arenas” are open to every organized group because that is where you are able to participate. Third, that the leaders are representatives, not elite, because the system has such openness. Since the grievances are acted upon, “in an open system, for themselves or through leaders” then not acting is not a political problem, but cultural one. This idea of power blames the victim by saying that low socioeconomic status correlation to the low participation rate is because of apathy, political inefficiency, cynicism or alienation of the impoverished, not recognizing that fosters their non-participation. This view says that group A’s power affects group B’s actions, but has no relevance to B’s choice of inactions, though they are less powerful than A. Power is understood by who wins in the bargaining of key issues.
The two-dimensional approach includes “power’s second face,” meaning that power acts to include some within the process and exclude others and their problems from it. Some actions problems are purposefully left out of politics and should they be brought up, people will be prevented from acting. This approach studies “’who gets what, when and how and who gets left out and how’ and how the two are interrelated” (p. 9). This approach focuses more on the preventative measure, as in figuring out any agendas of the struggle and how to prevent them from ever being brought up. It feels that as long as no hardships or injustices are brought up, then they do not exist; that everyone is happy with how things are. This dimension to the explanation of power neglects the idea of true power, which is the idea that you can prevent conflict from happening because this approach is oblivious to struggles from the start. The second dimension says that “power may work to limit the actions of the relatively powerless through a “mobilization of bias” that prevents certain issues and actors from gaining access to the decision-making process” (p. vii). One group benefits over another. Problems of the loosing community are “suffocated before they are voiced,” creating a cycle (p. 14).
The third view says that “power not only may limit action upon inequalities, it also may serve to shape conceptions of the powerless about the nature and extent of the inequalities themselves” (p. vii). Group A shows power over B when they act against B’s interests. Whenever group A gets group B to do something they do not want to, or when group A influences, determines or shapes the wants for group B, power is exercised, because they affect group B’s “conceptions of the issues” (p.12). It is a battle between the interests of those in power and the real issues of those oppressed. The third approach does not follow the individualistic trapping ideals of the first two approaches, but focuses on the sociological and historical explanations for why certain mandates are not political. It focuses on how the “social legitimations are developed around the dominant, and instilled as beliefs or roles in the dominated” (p. 15). “The consciousness of the colonized is affected by the values of the colonizer, as well as the extent to which the shaping is strengthened because of the sense of inadequacy or submissiveness amongst the dominated,” (p.
31-32). Not only does the group have to be dominated, but they need to accept their position in the society too. White people are no longer even aware of the privilege they have the community just because they are white. They have no idea that it comes from having owned slaves and the idea that slaves were beneath them. However, other races are aware of it. “The development of the colonial situation involves the shaping of wants, values, roles, and beliefs of the colonized” (p. 32). Other races already have a preconceived notion of blacks, so they already have to be three steps ahead of their own race to even come close to their white counterpart. So in a way, society says that whites are better, and because of history, it has become our
reality.
After being continuously defeated, people stop trying, or lower their demands.
If they see they have one a little, and then meet resistance, they may just take what they can get or lower their demands. If nothing is won, a culture of silence develops and eventually, people will start to believe that they do not deserve whatever they may not have. They become “socialized into compliance,” but participation increases consciousness, and when a group is completely shut out from the process, they can always become aware of their situation. There is a fine line that has to be walked when dealing with power over unequal groups. The second dimensional approach has people wanting to believe that racial inequality does not exist. The third dimensional approach has people forgetting what the real issues are. No one focuses on the pay gap between African Americans and Caucasians because some of the other inequalities between the groups were “fixed,” so people take what they can get and then forget that all is not equal. It is like the situations of countless victims of police brutality, but most recently Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner. The black community has always been a victim of police brutality but having none of the people found guilty in a courtroom for killing these young men has woken people up. Once the silence is broken, “the initial demands of the dominated may be vague, ambiguous, and partially developed,” (p. 19). If Darren Wilson had been found guilty,
would the community have forgotten about the ultimate goal for equality, just taken what they got and been happy with that one win? “Power works to develop and maintain the quiescence of the powerless. Rebellion, as a corollary, may emerge as power relationships are altered. Together, patterns of power and powerlessness can keep issues for arising, grievances from being, voiced and interest from being recognized,” (p.vii).

Gaventa, J. (1980). Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley. In J. Gaventa, Power and Powerlessness: Quiescence and Rebellion in an Appalachian Valley (pp. Preface; 3-32). University of Illinois Press.