What do you think?
De-Facing Power
In this major contribution to the power debate, Clarissa Rile Hayward challenges the prevailing view of power as something powerful people have and use. Rather than seeing it as having a face, she argues for a view of power as a complex network of social boundaries--norms, identities, institutions--which define individual freedom, for powerful and powerless alike. The book's argument is supported by a comparative analysis of relationships within two ethnically-diverse educational settings--a low-income, predominantly African-American urban school; and an affluent, predominantly white, suburban school.
228 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
About the author
Clarissa Rile Hayward
4 booksClarissa Rile Hayward is an American political scientist and political philosopher, currently a professor in political science at Washington University in St. Louis.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
August 29, 2014
Hayward takes an interesting look at power with her work "De-Facing Power". In this review I'll try to summarize "traditional" views of power, then I'll describe how Hayward's theory is different and generally why she thinks that way, then I'll end by describing the book (the format, not the content per se) and giving my quick thoughts of her theory...
Traditionally, when studying power, people think of power as an "A-B" relationship, where A has power over B, and that power is defined as "the ability for A to make B to something they wouldn't otherwise do if left to their own devices." This creates a loose dichotomy between the "powerful" and the "powerless". Hayward's study takes place in two elementary schools (one affluent, one in an impoverished area), and you'd think that power would flow from the teachers --> students (teachers are powerful, students are powerless). Hayward doesn't feel that these views accurately portray the reality of what she observed, however.
The Foucaultian view on power stresses the structures within which all actors frame their actions and takes the power out of individual interactions. No one has power, and all are equally affected by the power imposed upon them by their environment. Hayward doesn't quite buy this either, though. She agrees with Foucault that power exists beyond individuals and that it acts on everyone, rather than those individuals exerting power on one another in an A-B relationship. She focuses on social boundaries to action. For instance, raising your hand (the established norm in a school setting) both enables students (by letting people hear what is said, instead of everyone talking at once) and constrains them (you have to wait to be called on before speaking).
I really liked Hayward's view on power as a series of structural restraints and the differences in constraints and empowerment that they provide. I did feel that totally defacing power was problematic, however. There are valuable mechanisms present in the 3 faces of power - A's colonization of B's perception, for instance. I think that adopting a structural perception (which is a valuable piece ignored by 'face' theorists) that still allows for A-B relationships (a Marxist perspective, for instance) is the best of all worlds.
Entertainment: 0
Education: 1 Star
Thesis: 1 Star
Readability: 1 Star
Inspiration: 1 Star
Traditionally, when studying power, people think of power as an "A-B" relationship, where A has power over B, and that power is defined as "the ability for A to make B to something they wouldn't otherwise do if left to their own devices." This creates a loose dichotomy between the "powerful" and the "powerless". Hayward's study takes place in two elementary schools (one affluent, one in an impoverished area), and you'd think that power would flow from the teachers --> students (teachers are powerful, students are powerless). Hayward doesn't feel that these views accurately portray the reality of what she observed, however.
The Foucaultian view on power stresses the structures within which all actors frame their actions and takes the power out of individual interactions. No one has power, and all are equally affected by the power imposed upon them by their environment. Hayward doesn't quite buy this either, though. She agrees with Foucault that power exists beyond individuals and that it acts on everyone, rather than those individuals exerting power on one another in an A-B relationship. She focuses on social boundaries to action. For instance, raising your hand (the established norm in a school setting) both enables students (by letting people hear what is said, instead of everyone talking at once) and constrains them (you have to wait to be called on before speaking).
I really liked Hayward's view on power as a series of structural restraints and the differences in constraints and empowerment that they provide. I did feel that totally defacing power was problematic, however. There are valuable mechanisms present in the 3 faces of power - A's colonization of B's perception, for instance. I think that adopting a structural perception (which is a valuable piece ignored by 'face' theorists) that still allows for A-B relationships (a Marxist perspective, for instance) is the best of all worlds.
Entertainment: 0
Education: 1 Star
Thesis: 1 Star
Readability: 1 Star
Inspiration: 1 Star
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review