(Re)Conceptualising the third face of power: insights from Bourdieu and Foucault

Controlling Sustainability in Swedish Beef Production: Outcomes for Farmers and the Environment

“…The Swedish farmers expressed much more frustration with EU bureaucracy and a lack of support from the Swedish government for farming than with the negative effects for them of the concentration in retail. One way of interpreting this is that farmers normalise the effects of neoliberalism, despite it working against them (Akram et al 2015). A slightly different interpretation is that this is a conscious criticism of the current order by farmers who do not see a possibility of changing the retail sector, but feel that they might be able to influence Swedish government policy.…”

Augmenting the IAD framework to reveal power in collaborative governance – An illustrative application to resource industry dominated processes

“…The third dimension differs from the first two dimensions in that it is not power wielded by a specific actor at a given point in time. Instead, it is the manifestation of the conscious and unconscious actions and non-actions, and decisions and non-decisions, of many individuals over time (Akram, Emerson, & Marsh, 2015). For example, existing social norms and ideals concerning issues such as consumerism or human dominance of nature are the result of actions and decisions taken -or not taken -by actors over history (e.g., manufacturers, religious leaders, politicians, advertising agencies, resource companies, individuals who consume products).…”

“…This dimension is more difficult to reveal for the very reason that the internal processes through which individuals engage with existing power structures are often not directly expressed through action; in effect, they occur within the minds of individuals (Hayward & Lukes, 2008). As such, analysis of the third dimension remains underdeveloped (Akram et al, 2015). Power's third dimension requires consideration of external constraints, and the historical contexts through which those constraints are created, on the action situations that define collaboration (Akram et al, 2015;Gaventa, 1982;Hayward & Lukes, 2008).…”

“…As such, analysis of the third dimension remains underdeveloped (Akram et al, 2015). Power's third dimension requires consideration of external constraints, and the historical contexts through which those constraints are created, on the action situations that define collaboration (Akram et al, 2015;Gaventa, 1982;Hayward & Lukes, 2008). Identifying third-dimensional power may require collecting indirect evidence, such as how actors or institutions respond to real or perceived lapses in power, and considering whether dominant discourses marginalize alternative perspectives or disguise contradictions (Lukes, 2005).…”

“…Identifying third-dimensional power may require collecting indirect evidence, such as how actors or institutions respond to real or perceived lapses in power, and considering whether dominant discourses marginalize alternative perspectives or disguise contradictions (Lukes, 2005). Conducted this way, consideration of the third dimension accounts for patterns of actions that take place within contexts that are continuously constructed over time (Akram et al, 2015;Bourdieu, 1977;Foucault, 1978). Table 1, which is integrated into the beginning of the results section, combines Lukes' (2005) dimensions of power with theory on the IAD and collaborative governance.…”