权力的冲突性和共识性

Oleh Batrymenko, Vladyslav Andrushko
{"title":"权力的冲突性和共识性","authors":"Oleh Batrymenko, Vladyslav Andrushko","doi":"10.17721/2415-881x.2021.87.44-54","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the research was to consider the phenomenon of political power on the basis of the classification of «conflict-consensus». To do do, an analysis of the main cratological studies was provided (the concepts of M. Weber, R. Dahl, S. Lux, T. Parsons, H. Arendt and M. Foucault). These studies were synthesized into the two corresponding fundamental approaches: conflictual and consensual. It is studied that the conflictual nature of power is characterized by asymmetric relationships based on actual or potential conflict between individuals. It is also determined that such power arises in those social interactions where one of the subjects has the ability to influence the other, overcoming its resistance. In turn, it is established here that power in a consensual approach is seen as a collective resource, as an opportunity to achieve a certain public good. It has been found that the consensus approach rejects the idea of «zero amount», suggesting that power can be exercised for the common good. It is analyzed that the representatives of this approach emphasize the legitimative nature of power. According to them, power belongs not to individuals or groups, but to entire groups of people or society as a whole.","PeriodicalId":179135,"journal":{"name":"Politology bulletin","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE CONFLICTUAL AND CONSENSUAL NATURES OF POWER\",\"authors\":\"Oleh Batrymenko, Vladyslav Andrushko\",\"doi\":\"10.17721/2415-881x.2021.87.44-54\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of the research was to consider the phenomenon of political power on the basis of the classification of «conflict-consensus». To do do, an analysis of the main cratological studies was provided (the concepts of M. Weber, R. Dahl, S. Lux, T. Parsons, H. Arendt and M. Foucault). These studies were synthesized into the two corresponding fundamental approaches: conflictual and consensual. It is studied that the conflictual nature of power is characterized by asymmetric relationships based on actual or potential conflict between individuals. It is also determined that such power arises in those social interactions where one of the subjects has the ability to influence the other, overcoming its resistance. In turn, it is established here that power in a consensual approach is seen as a collective resource, as an opportunity to achieve a certain public good. It has been found that the consensus approach rejects the idea of «zero amount», suggesting that power can be exercised for the common good. It is analyzed that the representatives of this approach emphasize the legitimative nature of power. According to them, power belongs not to individuals or groups, but to entire groups of people or society as a whole.\",\"PeriodicalId\":179135,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politology bulletin\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politology bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2021.87.44-54\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politology bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2021.87.44-54","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究的目的是在“冲突-共识”分类的基础上考虑政治权力现象。为了做到这一点,对主要的神学家研究进行了分析(韦伯、R. Dahl、S. Lux、T. Parsons、H. Arendt和M.福柯的概念)。这些研究被综合为两种相应的基本方法:冲突和共识。权力的冲突本质表现为基于个体之间实际或潜在冲突的不对称关系。同样确定的是,这种权力出现在那些社会互动中,其中一个主体有能力影响另一个,克服其阻力。反过来,这里确定的是,在协商一致的方式下,权力被视为一种集体资源,作为实现某种公共利益的机会。人们发现,共识方法拒绝了“零数量”的概念,表明权力可以为共同利益而行使。分析认为,这一方法的代表人物强调权力的合法性。根据他们的观点,权力不属于个人或群体,而是属于整个群体或整个社会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE CONFLICTUAL AND CONSENSUAL NATURES OF POWER
The aim of the research was to consider the phenomenon of political power on the basis of the classification of «conflict-consensus». To do do, an analysis of the main cratological studies was provided (the concepts of M. Weber, R. Dahl, S. Lux, T. Parsons, H. Arendt and M. Foucault). These studies were synthesized into the two corresponding fundamental approaches: conflictual and consensual. It is studied that the conflictual nature of power is characterized by asymmetric relationships based on actual or potential conflict between individuals. It is also determined that such power arises in those social interactions where one of the subjects has the ability to influence the other, overcoming its resistance. In turn, it is established here that power in a consensual approach is seen as a collective resource, as an opportunity to achieve a certain public good. It has been found that the consensus approach rejects the idea of «zero amount», suggesting that power can be exercised for the common good. It is analyzed that the representatives of this approach emphasize the legitimative nature of power. According to them, power belongs not to individuals or groups, but to entire groups of people or society as a whole.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信