Faces of Power Debate in International Relations Theory: A Wrong Turn?

The notion of power is fundamental to the international relations theory serving as a tool for  both assessment of the contemporary IR and making forecasts about a new world order. Studies of power give an impression of a dynamic subdiscipline, rich with substantive discussions, new concepts and approaches. However, this image can be deceptive, hiding serious theoretical issues and  gaps  which severely limit the opportunities for applied analysis of power relations in the international arena. This paper focuses on the so-called faces (or dimensions) of power debate – one of the key theoretical debates within the Western studies of power, which to a considerable extent has predetermined the present state of the subdiscipline. On the basis of a thorough critical analysis of works by R. Dahl, P. Bachrach, M.S. Baratz, S. Lukes and several other scholars the paper provides an original assessment of the main points and directions of the faces of power debate, as well as its implications for theoretical studies of power in international relations. It is shown that contrary to common perceptions this debate should not be viewed as a manifestation of a steady and continuous development of scholarly approaches to understanding the essence  of  power  in international  relations  from  overly  simplified  and  reductionist  towards  more sophisticated and methodologically consistent. The author argues that the debate on the faces of power has shifted the focus of power studies away from fundamental theoretical issues towards albeit important but only peripheral questions and consolidated several trends, detrimental to the epistemology of power. The general decrease in scholarly knowledge of power agenda constitutes the first and most fundamental trend. The second trend is a continuous and methodologically untenable process  of  broadening the research field of power to include new forms and types of social interactions. Finally, the third trend is linked to the introduction of normative components in the process of conceptual analysis of the notion of ‘power’, increasing attempts to provide definition of a normatively desirable power. The second section of the paper examines the concept of J.S. Nye as an illustrative example of these trends. The author concludes that a possible way to break this impasse involves resurgence of unduly forgotten ideas of R. Dahl enhanced by a more elaborated methodology for study social and economic determinants of power relations in the international arena.

1. Akram S., Emerson G., Marsh D. (2015). (Re)conceptualizing the third face of power: insights from Bourdieu and Foucault. Journal of Political Power. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 345–362. DOI: 10.1080/2158379X. 2015.1095845.

2. Bachrach P., Baratz M.S. (1962). Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review. Vol. 56. P. 947–952.

3. Baldwin D. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies. Vol. 23. No. 1. P. 5–26.

4. Baldwin D. (2013). Power and international relations. In: Handbook of international relations. Ed. by W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, B.A. Simmons. London: SAGE Publ. P. 273–297.

5. Baldwin D. (2015). Misinterpreting Dahl on power. Journal of Political Power. Vol. 8. No. 2. P. 209– 227. DOI: 10.1080/2158379X.2015.1055950.

6. Baldwin D. (2016). Power and international relations. A conceptual approach. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 223 p.

7. Baranovskii V.G. (2017). Izmeneniya v global'nom politicheskom landshafte [Changes in global political landscape]. Puti k miru i bezopasnosti. No. 1 (52). P. 55–63. DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2017-155-63.

8. Barnett M., Duvall R. (2005). Power in global governance. In: Power in global governance. Ed. by M. Barnett, R. Duvall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 368 p.

9. Bogdanov A.N. (2014). Amerikanskaya gegemoniya i faktory sistemnoi nestabil'nosti v XXI veke [American hegemony and systemic stability]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 12. No. 38. P. 8–22.

10. Chayes A., Chayes A.H. (1993). On compliance. International Organization. Vol. 47. No. 2. P. 175–205.

11. Chayes A., Chayes A.H. (1995). The new sovereignty: compliance with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 417 p.

12. Dahl R. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science. Vol. 2. No. 3. P. 201–215.

13. Dahl R. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale University Press. 355 p.

14. Davydov Yu.P. (2004). Ponyatie «zhestkoi» i «myagkoi» sily v teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii ["Hard" and "soft" power in international relations theory]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 4. P. 69–80.

15. Digeser P. (1992). The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics. Vol. 54. No. 4. P. 977–1007. DOI: 10.2307/2132105.

16. Dynkin A., Burrows M. (eds.) (2016). Global'naya sistema na perelome: puti k novoi normal'nosti [Global system on the brink: pathways toward a new normal]. Moscow: IMEMO RAN. 32 p.

17. Gallarotti G.M. (2011). Soft power: what it is, why it’s important, and the conditions for its effective use. Journal of Political Power. Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 25–47. DOI: 10.1080/2158379X.2011.557886.

18. Haugaard M. (2012). Rethinking the four dimensions of power: domination and empowerment. Journal of Political Power. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 33–54.

19. Hay C. (2002). Political analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 336 p.

20. Korolev V.A., Vladimirova A.V., Trunina A.A. (2014). Stranovoi brending i ego otrazhenie v global'nykh reitingakh «myagkoi sily» [Country branding and soft power global ratings]. International organisations research journal. Vol. 9. No 2. P. 209–228.

21. Lasswell H.D., Kaplan A. (1950). Power and society: a framework for political inquiry. New Haven: Yale University Press. 295 p.

22. Ledyaev V.G. (2001). Vlast': kontseptual'nyi analiz [Power: a conceptual analysis].Moscow: ROSSPEN. 384 p.

23. Leonova O. (2013). Myagkaya sila – resurs vneshnei politiki gosudarstva [Soft power as a resource of the state foreign politics]. Obozrevatel' – Observer, No. 4. P. 27–40.

24. Lukes S. (1974). Power: a radical view. London: Macmillan. 64 p.

25. Lukes S. (2005). Power: a radical view: 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 192 p.

26. Mann M. (2006). The sources of social power. Vol. 2. The rise of classes and nation-states, 1760– 1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 823 p. [Russ. ed.: Mann M. (2018a). Istochniki sotsial'noy vlasti. V 4 t. Tom 2. Stanovlenie klassov i natsiy-gosudarstv. 1760–1914. Kniga 1. Moscow: Izdatel'skiy dom «Delo» RANKHiGS. 512 p.].

27. Mann M. (2013). The sources of social power. Vol. 4. Globalizations: 1945–2011. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 492 p.

28. Manners I. (2002). Normative power Europe: A contradiction in terms? Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 40. No. 2. P. 235–258.

29. Mattern J.B. (2008). The concept of power and the (un)discipline of international relations. In: The Oxford handbook of international relations. Ed. by C. Reus-Smit, D. Snidal. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 772 p.

30. Mead W.R. (2009). America’s sticky power. Foreign Affairs. URL: https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/29/ americas-sticky-power/ (accessed: 08.07.2018).

31. Mel'vil' A.Yu. (2018). Mogushchestvo i vliyanie sovremennykh gosudarstv v usloviyakh menyayushchegosya mirovogo poryadka: nekotorye teoretiko-metodologicheskie aspekty [Power and influence of modern states within the changing world order: Some theoretical and methodological aspects]. Politicheskaya nauka. No. 1. P. 173–200.

32. Morgenthau H.J. (1948). Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. New York: Knopf. 489 p.

33. Morriss P. (2002). Power: a philosophical analysis. 2nd ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 277 p.

34. Morriss P. (2006). Steven Lukes on the concept of power. Political Studies Review. Vol. 4. P. 124–135.

35. Nikitin A.I. (2016). Novaya sistema otnoshenii velikikh derzhav XXI veka: "kontsert" ili konfrontatsiya? [New system of relations between great powers for the 21st century: “concert” or confrontation?] Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. № 1. С. 44-59. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2016.01.04.

36. Nye J.S. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy. No. 80. P. 153–171.

37. Nye J.S. (2004). Soft power: means to success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs Group. 192 p.

38. Nye J.S. (2011). The future of power. New York: Public Affairs. 300 p.

39. Nye J.S. (2014). Budushchee vlasti [The future of power]. Moscow: AST. 448 p.

40. Nye J.S. (2018). How sharp power threatens soft power. Foreign Affairs. URL: https://www. foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-01-24/how-sharp-power-threatens-soft-power (accessed:

41. 07.2018).

42. Paolini A. (1993). Foucault, realism and the power discourse in international relations. Australian Journal of Political Science. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 98–117.

43. Parshin P.B. (2013). Problematika «myagkoi sily» vo vneshnei politike Rossii [Soft power in Russia’s foreign policy]. Moscow, MGIMO-Universitet. 38 p.

44. Parshin P.B. (2014). Dva ponimaniya «myagkoi sily»: Predposylki, korrelyaty i sledstviya [Two understandings of "soft power": prerequisites, correlates and consequences]. Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta, No. 2 (35). P. 14–21.

45. Shakleina T. (2015). Liderstvo i sovremennyi mirovoi poryadok [Leadership and contemporary world order]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 3. P. 35–58.

46. Simoniya N.A., Torkunov A.V. (2015). Novyi mirovoi poryadok: ot bipolyarnosti k mnogopolyusnosti [New world order: from bipolarity to multipolarity]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya. No. 3. P. 27–37.

47. Sprout H., Sprout M. (1945). Foundations of national power: readings on world politics and American security. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 774 p.

48. Walker C., Ludwig J. (2017). The meaning of sharp power. Foreign Affairs. URL: https://www. foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2017-11-16/meaning-sharp-power (accessed: 08.07.2018).

49. Yudin N.V. (2014). Zhestkii vzglyad na «myagkuyu silu». Kriticheskii analiz monografii Dzh. Naya “Budushchee vlasti” [Hard look at soft power: critical reflections on “The future of power” by Joseph S. Nye]. Moscow University Bulletin of World Politics. No. 2. P. 134–163.