Problem setting. There is evidence that Political power plays a crucial role in regulating social processes. But it is also a difficult concept to understand and define. That`s why this phenomenon has been studied by many researchers using different methods and absolutely different scientific approaches, what has made it an ambigious term. It causes an actuality of synthesizing the most significant innovative concepts into unite theoretical background. Resent research and publication analysis. Previous research has established that Political power is related to Power of law. A number of cross-sectional studies suggest an association between Political power and Public governance, State Power. The issue has been a controversial and much disputed subject within the multidisciplinary field of sociological, culturelogical, psychological and even linguistical researches. As a result, this concept has recently been challenged by postmodernist`s studies demonstrating its hidden features. We should notice a big number of scholars, from M. Faucault and P. Bourdieu to S. Lukes and K. Dowding, whose developments in the field of Cratology have led to a renewed interest in political power. Paper objective. The purpose of this investigation is to explore the innovative approaches to political power understanding and to give own definition of this phenomenon. Paper main body. The methodological approach taken in this study is a mixed methodology based on qualitative and quantative, theoretical and empirical studies. The overall structure of the study takes the form of two conditional parts. The first part of this paper examines the innovative approaches to general power understanding. In the section we are proving that power is based on information. The second part also begins by laying out the theoretical dimensions of the research, and looks what is political power at postmodernist`s context. In summary, information is seemed to be the most efficient power resource, because it touches each part of people existence. Conclusions of the research. So, we can confirm that political power is perceived rather as communicative, mental concept than a part of state`s institution system. In other words, now it is believed that modern power as kind of social influence is appearing from every part of social life due to its cognitive nature, but at the same time it is almost disappearing as traditional part of government structure. The result of the analysis is also proclaimed by the author's approach to the rationalization of “political power”: “classical” (power and political power are the same), “institutional” (based on the law and the state form of political power) and “functional” (based on the information power that is aimed to political processes. The next result of the article is our political power clarifying. According to the R. Dahl’s definition and the V. Ledyaev’s classification we define political power as a “A`s possibility to construct B`s “picture of the world”. So, this study seems to be relevant. In conclusion I’d like to say that this topic is perceived as inexhaustible and that theme is still so actual for further multidisciplinary researches.

The object of this research is modern political power relations. The discourse is studied in the traditions of postmodernism, including as a ‘picture of the world’, cognitive model, worldview and the limits of what is possible in the thinking and behaviour of individuals. According to the discourse theories, all objects of reality are discursive, that is, any phenomenon is inscribed in a context that gives it full meaning. All objects of the surrounding world can acquire different meanings (or identities) depending on the specific circumstances in which they are immersed. Discourse is a way of ordering reality, a mechanism for determining the values of people. The subject of power in this context is understood as a collective or individual actor who has special access to the discourse and can control it. According to Foucault’s theory, discourse can be identified with power. This research finds that discourse is the most efficient power resource because it touches every part of a person’s existence. The paper explains the problem from both sides: as the development of political discourse theories on the one hand and as the innovative research of modern power relations in a context of discursive technologies on the other hand. The research is based on the works of M. Foucault, T. Van Dijk, L. Althusser, A. Gramsci, E. Laclau and Sh. Mouff, all of whom measured discourse in a variety of ways. Thus, in our research, we used such theoretical methods for analysis, classification and comparison. The analysis of discourse undertaken here has extended our knowledge of political power relations. The findings in this study provide a new understanding of discourse as a cognition that actualises many questions for further investigations. The findings may be of interest for both scholars and students who study political power in general or discourse as a picture of the world in particular.

No 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.