Asimov and the 3 Dimensions of Power.

  Obviously, the concept of power is a very important 
part of human life. And obviously, a good
deal of Isaac Asimovs work is about power.
  E.g. the Robot series and the Foundation series are, 
among other things, about the power to decide the 
destiny of humanity.
 In Asimovs books, power is never just brute 
force. It is bit more subtle. It is mentalistic 
robots that bend human thinking in their (robots) prefered
direction. It is the Hari Seldon like philosophers, who
gain the (power) advantage by seeing just a little further. 

  Actually, come to think of it,
Asimov follows Steven Lukes "power - a radical view" quite nicely.
According to Lukes there are three dimensions of power.
Describing increasing levels of sophistication.
I.e.

--------------------------

Lukes - One dimensional view of power.

A has power of B to the extend that he can
get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.
The stress here is on the study of concrete, 
observable behaviour.
Involves a focus on behaviour in the making
of decisions on issues over which there is
an observable conflict of subjective 
interests, seen as express policy preferences,
revealed by political participation.

Test the hypothesis of a ruling class, if there are
cases involving key political decisions in which
the preferences of the hypothetical ruling elite
run counter to those of any other likely group
that might be suggested and in such cases,
the preferences of the elite regularly prevail.

Conflict in this view, is assumed to be 
crucial in providing an experimental test
of power attributions.

--------------------------

Lukes - The two dimensional view.

To the extend that a person or group - consciously
or unciously - creates or reinforces barries
to the the public airing of policy conflicts, that
person or group has power.

A set of predominant values, beliefs, rituals,
and institutional procedures (rules of
the game) that operate systematically and
consistantly to the benefit of
certain persons and groups at the expense of
others.

This power embraces coercion, influence,
authority, force and manipulation.

Power may be, and often is, exercised by
confining the scope of decision making to 
relatively safe issues.

A non-decision is a decision that results
in suppression or twarthing of a latent
or manifest challenge to the values 
or interests of the decision maker.

A key issue being one that involves a genuine
challenge to the resources of power
or authority of currently dominate the
the process by which policy outputs in the system
are determined.

The two dimensional view incorporates
into the analysis of power relations the
control over the agenda of politics and
of the ways in which potential issues
are kept out of the political process.

--------------------------

Lukes - The three dimensional view.

A may exercise power over B by getting
him to do what he does not want to do,
but he also excercises power over him by influencing,
shaping or determining his very wants.

That is to secure their compliance by controlling their
very wants. Controlling their thoughts and desires.

In modern societies that is
through the control of information, through the
mass media, and through the process of
socialisation.

Almost the entire adult population has been subject
to some degree of indoctrination through the schools.

Actual conflict is not necessary for power.
The most effective and insidious use
of power is to prevent such a conflict from arising
in the first place.

It is not enough to find that there are grievances,
which are denied into the political process.
If the observer can uncover no grievances, then
he can not assume there is a geuine consensus
on the prevailing allocation of values.
Perceptions, cognitions and preferences
maybe shaped in such a form that people might
accept the existing order of things, either because
they can see nor imagine no alternative to it.

To assume the absense of grivance equals genuine
consensus is simply to rule out
the possibility of false or manipulated consensus.

--------------------------
 
   Obviously, this is where 
chief Robopsychologist dr. Susan Calvin steps in :-)
Susan Calvin, the star of US Robots and Mechanical Men inc. 
The woman with the acid charm and the steely character, 
the women who loves robots a lot - and men not that much.

   Simply, Asimov would have prefered her to design the robots
to seek influence under Lukes dimension 3 of
power! Never letting anyone know what is actually
going on. No open conflict. No war. Just R.Giscard twisting a
mind here and there for the greater cause.

   Actually it must follow from the 3 robots law
that in order to avoid harm - you must avoid conflict.
And conflict is certainly avoided in Lukes dimension 3.
So if you, Susan Calvin and the robots, know the answers
to a certain question, this must just be imprinted 
in society as a 3 dimensional power operation.

   Conflict comes when you (Susan Calvin, R. Daneel,
R. Giscard etc) doesn't know the answer - or isn't interested
in having a certain predetermined outcome. Then you can step down
your power measures to dimensions 1 or 2. Or step out of
a conflict altogether.
   Allowing an issue to surface, or even allowing conflict.

   But somehow Asimov wouldn't really have believed that
it could ever come to that? Or would he? To me it seems
that (the later) Asimov only allowed conflict as a part
of a greater scheme, where the conflict serves as a 
catalyst for the prefered (robot) solution? 
   He wouldn't really think that someone could outsmart
the likes of Susan Calvin or R.Daneel?

-Simon

Simon Laub
www.silanian.subnet.dk