An original investigation of the nature of the forces that make members and representatives both loyal and beneficial to a contemporary political party, this book combines theoretical reflection with interview and archive material to provide a unique perspective on power, arguing that it is more complex and nuanced than is frequently assumed.

""Power" is a central concept for politics, arguably defining the political domain as such. However, despite decades of debate across political science, sociology, and philosophy, a proper definition of power is still to be had. Existing definitions fail because they are either circular or so far removed from the ordinary meaning of "power" that they cannot credibly claim to be about the same concept. This book, employing an Arendtian approach to conceptual analysis, provides a more proper definition - power denotes the condition of having available possibilities and representing them as such - and examines its implications for the study of politics, both empirical and normative. From the vantage point of a proper definition, the book shows how, by neglecting the category of possibility, significant portions of political science and philosophy become incapable of conceptualizing power, and therefore politics. The main issue with political science is the increasingly exclusive focus on causal and probabilistic regularities; political philosophy, on the other hand, tends to prioritize various forms of a teleologically oriented normativity. Both of these approaches end up discarding possibility in favor of necessity, and are therefore unable to properly conceptualize power. Finally, bringing together the different disciplinary discourses, the book examines the conditions for the concept of power to have an actual referent, which is to say: for politics to appear in our world"--

In Power in Modernity, Isaac Ariail Reed proposes a bold new theory of power that describes overlapping networks of delegation and domination. Chains of power and their representation, linking together groups and individuals across time and space, create a vast network of intersecting alliances, subordinations, redistributions, and violent exclusions. Reed traces the common action of “sending someone else to do something for you” as it expands outward into the hierarchies that control territories, persons, artifacts, minds, and money. He mobilizes this theory to investigate the onset of modernity in the Atlantic world, with a focus on rebellion, revolution, and state formation in colonial North America, the early American Republic, the English Civil War, and French Revolution. Modernity, Reed argues, dismantled the “King’s Two Bodies”—the monarch’s physical body and his ethereal, sacred second body that encompassed the body politic—as a schema of representation for forging power relations. Reed’s account then offers a new understanding of the democratic possibilities and violent exclusions forged in the name of “the people,” as revolutionaries sought new ways to secure delegation, build hierarchy, and attack alterity. Reconsidering the role of myth in modern politics, Reed proposes to see the creative destruction and eternal recurrence of the King’s Two Bodies as constitutive of the modern attitude, and thus as a new starting point for critical theory. Modernity poses in a new way an eternal human question: what does it mean to be the author of one’s own actions?

Joseph Nye coined the term "soft power" in the late 1980s. It is now used frequently—and often incorrectly—by political leaders, editorial writers, and academics around the world. So what is soft power? Soft power lies in the ability to attract and persuade. Whereas hard power—the ability to coerce—grows out of a country's military or economic might, soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country's culture, political ideals, and policies. Hard power remains crucial in a world of states trying to guard their independence and of non-state groups willing to turn to violence. It forms the core of the Bush administration's new national security strategy. But according to Nye, the neo-conservatives who advise the president are making a major miscalculation: They focus too heavily on using America's military power to force other nations to do our will, and they pay too little heed to our soft power. It is soft power that will help prevent terrorists from recruiting supporters from among the moderate majority. And it is soft power that will help us deal with critical global issues that require multilateral cooperation among states. That is why it is so essential that America better understands and applies our soft power. This book is our guide.

Framed by a new and substantial introductory chapter, this book collects Stefano Guzzini’s reference articles and some less well-known publications on power, realism and constructivism. By analysing theories and their assumptions, but also theorists following their intellectual paths, his analysis explores the diversity of different schools, and moves beyond simple definitions to explore their intrinsic tensions and fallacies. Guzzini’s approach to the analysis of power – within and outside International Relations – provides the common theme of the book through which the theoretical state of the art in IR is reassessed. A novel analysis of power and the potential limits of realism and constructivism in International Relations, Power, Realism and Constructivism will be of interest to students and scholars of international relations, international political economy, social and political theory, and the study of power.

Presents a critical and historical study of European writers and theorists of Socialism in the one hundred fifty years leading to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and discusses European socialism, anarchism, and theories of revolution.

Power is the central organizing principle of all social life, from culture and education to stratification and taste. And there is no more prominent name in the analysis of power than that of noted sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Throughout his career, Bourdieu challenged the commonly held view that symbolic power—the power to dominate—is solely symbolic. He emphasized that symbolic power helps create and maintain social hierarchies, which form the very bedrock of political life. By the time of his death in 2002, Bourdieu had become a leading public intellectual, and his argument about the more subtle and influential ways that cultural resources and symbolic categories prevail in power arrangements and practices had gained broad recognition. In Symbolic Power, Politics, and Intellectuals, David L. Swartz delves deeply into Bourdieu’s work to show how central—but often overlooked—power and politics are to an understanding of sociology. Arguing that power and politics stand at the core of Bourdieu’s sociology, Swartz illuminates Bourdieu’s political project for the social sciences, as well as Bourdieu’s own political activism, explaining how sociology is not just science but also a crucial form of political engagement.