{"id":3461,"date":"2026-08-11T22:11:01","date_gmt":"2026-08-11T16:41:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/concept-of-power\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T02:58:24","modified_gmt":"2026-08-11T21:28:24","slug":"concept-of-power","status":"publish","type":"psir_note","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/psir\/notes\/concept-of-power\/","title":{"rendered":"Concept of power"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
PSIR Notes<\/a>\u203a<\/span>I-A Political Theory and Indian Politics<\/a>\u203a<\/span>Concept of power<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Paper I \u00b7 Political Theory and Indian Politics<\/div>\n

Concept of power<\/h1>\n
Syllabus \u00b7 Paper I-A \u00b7 7<\/b> \u2014 Concept of power<\/span> : hegemony, ideology and legitimacy.<\/div>\n<\/header>\n
\n
<\/p>\n

Meaning, Nature & Centrality of Power<\/h3>\n

Power = the ability to produce effects in social interaction, to secure compliance, to shape outcomes. Central to political science as money is to economics<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Key Definitions<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Scholar & Source<\/th>\nDefinition \/ Core Idea<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Bertrand Russell<\/span>, Power: A New Social Analysis<\/em><\/td>\n\u201cThe production of intended effects.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Robert Dahl<\/span><\/td>\n\u201cA has power over B to the extent that A can get B to do something which B would not otherwise do.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Max Weber<\/span><\/td>\nProbability that an actor can carry out his will despite resistance in a social relationship.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Robert M. MacIver<\/span>, The Web of Government<\/em><\/td>\n\u201cThe capacity in any relationship to command the service or compliance of others.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Schwarzenberger<\/span><\/td>\nCapacity to impose will on others, backed by effective sanctions for non-compliance.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
H. V. Wiseman<\/span>, Political Systems<\/em><\/td>\n\u201cPower is the ability to get one\u2019s wishes carried out despite opposition.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Charles P. Schleicher<\/span><\/td>\nAbility to make others act via reward, threat, or deprivation.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kautilya<\/span><\/td>\nPower from three elements: knowledge, military capacity, valour.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Nivedita Menon<\/span><\/td>\nAbility to do things and produce effects within social interaction.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
F. M. Watkins<\/span><\/td>\nPolitical science = investigation of all associations for the problem of power (The State as a Concept<\/em>, 1934).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Harold D. Lasswell<\/span><\/td>\nPolitical science = study of the shaping and sharing of power.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
William A. Robson<\/span><\/td>\nPolitical science is primarily concerned with power in society \u2014 its nature, basis, processes, scope and results.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mark O. Dickerson<\/span><\/td>\nInfluence = the ability to persuade<\/em> others to want to do your will.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Power Cannot Be Only Domination<\/span><\/p>\n

Power may operate as: coercion \u00b7 influence \u00b7 authority \u00b7 hegemony \u00b7 ideology \u00b7 knowledge \u00b7 discipline \u00b7 consent \u00b7 collective action<\/p>\n

Two Assumptions in Dahl \u2014 and the Challenges<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Dahl\u2019s Presumption<\/th>\nContemporary Challenge<\/th>\nChallenger<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Power is an attribute of individuals<\/span><\/td>\nPower is collective<\/em><\/td>\nHannah Arendt<\/span>; Talcott Parsons<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Power is domination<\/span> over others<\/td>\nPower is also enabling<\/em> (power to)<\/td>\nHannah Arendt<\/span>; C. B. Macpherson<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Lewis Coser\u2019s Two Traditions<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n
Weber Tradition<\/th>\nParsons Tradition<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Power as domination<\/span> (power over) \u2014 impose will despite resistance; command & compliance<\/td>\nPower as collective facility<\/span> (power to) \u2014 enables collective goals; positive social facility<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Bases of Power.<\/span> Force \u00b7 Influence \u00b7 Authority. + knowledge & expertise \u00b7 control of economic assets \u00b7 command over organisation \u00b7 control of ideology \u00b7 discourse control \u00b7 institutional position \u00b7 military-admin apparatus \u00b7 moral credibility \u00b7 collective action. Three Levels of Power Bases:<\/span> Individual level (Dahl) \u00b7 Collective level (Arendt) \u00b7 Structural level (Marx\/Foucault).<\/p>\n

UPSC 2022 \u00b7 10m<\/span>Comment on the bases of power in about 150 words.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n
UPSC 2020 \u00b7 15m<\/span>Examine the nature and meaning of power.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n

Steven Lukes\u2019 Three-Dimensional View of Power<\/h3>\n
\n

Steven Lukes<\/span>, Power: A Radical View<\/em>: Power is an essentially contested concept<\/span>. \u201cPower is at its most effective when it is least observable.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Lukes\u2019 Three Faces of Power.<\/span> 1st Dimension \u2014 Decision-Making<\/span>: Visible conflict \u2022 open wins\/losses \u2022 pluralist view; Ex: Hobbes, legislative voting \u2192 2nd Dimension \u2014 Agenda-Setting<\/span>: Keep issues out of debate \u2022 Bachrach & Baratz: non-decision-making \u2022 dominant economic classes \u2192 3rd Dimension \u2014 Thought-Control<\/span>: Shape perceptions, beliefs, preferences \u2022 prevent recognition of real interests \u2022 Gramsci\u2019s hegemony \u2022 Marcuse\u2019s one-dimensional man. Least hidden \u2192\u2192\u2192 Most hidden & most effective.<\/em><\/p>\n

UPSC 2020 \u00b7 15m<\/span>Examine the nature and meaning of power.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n

Major Perspectives on Power<\/h3>\n

Liberal & Marxist \u2014 Comparison Table<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Dimension<\/th>\nLiberal<\/th>\nMarxist (Marx & Lenin)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Origin of power<\/span><\/td>\nPeople \/ popular consent<\/td>\nEconomic relations; class structure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Holders of power<\/span><\/td>\nElected officials, institutions, dispersed groups<\/td>\nDominant class controlling means of production<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Role of state<\/span><\/td>\nSymbol of popular sovereignty; accountable<\/td>\nInstrument of bourgeoisie; executive committee<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Legitimation<\/span><\/td>\nElections, constitutionalism, rule of law, rights<\/td>\nIdeology and false consciousness; hegemony<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Goal<\/span><\/td>\nOrder, rights, welfare<\/td>\nClass struggle; eventual classless society<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lenin<\/span><\/td>\n\u201cThe passing of state power from one class to another is the first principal, the basic sign of revolution.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Feminist Theory<\/span><\/p>\n

Power is gendered<\/span>. Patriarchal structures exclude women. Feminist conceptualisations: power as resource to be redistributed; power as domination; power as empowerment.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Scholar<\/th>\nKey Contribution<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Simone de Beauvoir<\/span>, The Second Sex<\/em><\/td>\nSociety constructs femininity; woman treated as \u201cthe Other\u201d \u2192 subordination.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Carole Pateman<\/span>, The Sexual Contract<\/em><\/td>\nTraditional social contracts support patriarchy; women excluded from public sphere.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Kimberl\u00e9 Crenshaw<\/span><\/td>\nIntersectionality: overlapping oppressions for women of colour.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Sandra Harding<\/span><\/td>\nStandpoint theory: marginalised perspectives challenge patriarchal knowledge.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
bell hooks<\/span><\/td>\nPatriarchal systems affect both men and women; reinforces male dominance.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gayle Rubin<\/span>, The Traffic in Women<\/em><\/td>\nWomen\u2019s sexuality commodified in patriarchal systems.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Mary Wollstonecraft<\/span> & Virginia Woolf<\/span><\/td>\nPrepared ground for critique of gendered power.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Hannah Arendt\u2019s Constructive View<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cPower corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Hannah Arendt<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

collective \u00b7 communicative \u00b7 public \u00b7 positive \u00b7 distinct from violence \u00b7 arises through participation<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cBy its very nature, violence destroys and by destroying, it makes impossible the creation of power. Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Hannah Arendt<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Examples: Civil Rights Movement (MLK), Women\u2019s Suffrage, Gandhi\u2019s Salt March, fall of Berlin Wall 1989.<\/p>\n

C. B. Macpherson\u2019s View of Power<\/span><\/p>\n

UPSC 2025 \u00b7 10m<\/span>Explain C. B. Macpherson\u2019s view on power.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

C. B. Macpherson<\/span>, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke<\/em> \u2014 connects power with liberalism, possessive individualism<\/span>, extractive power<\/span> and developmental power<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Concept<\/th>\nMeaning<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Possessive individualism<\/span><\/td>\nIndividuals are owners of themselves and their property; liberal society links freedom with property; state protects property rights \u2192 limited idea of freedom.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Extractive power<\/span><\/td>\nControl over productive capacities of others for one\u2019s own purposes; capitalist market institutions legitimise this; those who control property control others\u2019 labour.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Developmental power<\/span><\/td>\nAbility to develop higher-order human capacities: rational understanding, moral judgement, aesthetic creation, friendship, love, religious experience \u2014 these are essentially human<\/em>. Ethical, not merely descriptive.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Democratic goal<\/td>\nEliminate extractive power; place self-development at the centre of democracy.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Nancy Fraser<\/span> (critique)<\/td>\nStresses role of wealth inequality, social hierarchy and historical legacies in shaping power and development.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Postmodern Perspective<\/span><\/p>\n

Jean-Fran\u00e7ois Lyotard<\/span>: postmodernism = incredulity toward metanarratives. Michel Foucault<\/span> rejects both Hobbesian sovereign power and Marxist class-centred power. Power operates through institutions, discourses, knowledge, identity, surveillance, norms.<\/p>\n

Elitist Theory of Power<\/h3>\n

Core claim:<\/span> Power is always concentrated in the hands of a small organised minority \u2014 irrespective of regime type (capitalist, socialist, democratic, Marxist).<\/p>\n

Precursors: Plato<\/span> (men of reason\/courage\/appetite); Aristotle<\/span> (master-slave); Machiavelli<\/span> (not everyone can be a prince).<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Scholar & Work<\/th>\nCore Concept<\/th>\nKey Points<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Vilfredo Pareto<\/span>
Mind and Society<\/em><\/td>\n		Circulation of Elites<\/span><\/td>\nSociety: elites (governing + non-governing) vs masses. Foxes (cunning, manipulative) vs Lions (forceful, decisive). History = \u201cgraveyard of aristocracy\u201d \u2014 elites decay, counter-elites rise, circulation restarts.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Gaetano Mosca<\/span>
The Ruling Class<\/em><\/td>\n		Ruling Minority<\/span><\/td>\nEvery society: ruling minority + ruled majority. Oligarchy is universal. Organisation and leadership skills make elites powerful. Elite rotation maintains vitality.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Robert Michels<\/span>
Political Parties<\/em><\/td>\n		Iron Law of Oligarchy<\/span><\/td>\n\u201cHe who says organization, says oligarchy.\u201d Large organisations \u2192 bureaucratisation \u2192 specialised leadership \u2192 passive masses \u2192 power in few. Even socialist parties follow this.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Charles Wright Mills<\/span>
The Power Elite<\/em><\/td>\n		Power Elite<\/span><\/td>\nUS = oligarchy, not democracy. Elite: top government executives + military\/defence leaders + corporate officials. Interconnected, similar background, worldview. Power pyramid: Elite \u2192 middle level (opinion leaders) \u2192 disengaged masses. Managed democracy.<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Raymond Aron<\/span><\/td>\nFractured vs Monolithic Elites<\/span><\/td>\nLiberal states: fractured elite (competitive parties, citizen choice). Communist states: monolithic elite (single party, no real choice).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Assessment<\/span><\/p>\n

Strength:<\/span> Explains gap between formal democracy and actual power; explains concentration in bureaucracy, military, corporations. Critique: Dahl<\/span> \u2014 multiple elites compete; Marxists<\/span> \u2014 circulation changes faces, not class domination; Pierre Bourdieu<\/span> \u2014 elite reproduction via cultural capital and schools.<\/p>\n

Pluralist Theory of Power<\/h3>\n

Robert Dahl<\/span>, Who Governs?: Democracy and Power in an American City<\/em> (New Haven study) \u2014 rebuttal of Mills.<\/p>\n

\n

Polyarchy<\/span> = rule of many; the best feasible form of democracy. High participation + contestation + multiple power centres.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Stage<\/th>\nScholar(s)<\/th>\nCore Argument<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Classic Pluralism<\/span><\/td>\nRobert Dahl<\/span><\/td>\nPower dispersed among competing interest groups; no one group dominates all issues; citizens exercise power as group members.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Neo-Pluralism<\/span><\/td>\nDahl & Charles Lindblom<\/span><\/td>\nCorporate groups have greater influence \u2192 deformed polyarchy<\/span>; policy outcomes tilted toward corporate interests. Comes closer to Marxism.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Neo-Neopluralism<\/span><\/td>\nEric Nordlinger<\/span><\/td>\nState monopolises power; relevant for third world \u2014 state is most prominent actor. Close to structural Marxism and overdeveloped state<\/em>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Michel Foucault\u2019s Concept of Power<\/h3>\n
UPSC 2023 \u00b7 10m<\/span>Comment on Michel Foucault\u2019s concept of power.<\/span>Answer<\/a><\/div>\n
\n

Foucault<\/span> rejects sovereign (Hobbesian) and class-centred (Marxist) views. Power is non-sovereign<\/span>, dispersed<\/span>, productive<\/span>, capillary<\/span>. Power flows like blood through capillaries.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

\u201cPower is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Michel Foucault<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n

\u201cTruth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Michel Foucault<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Concept<\/th>\nMeaning<\/th>\nExample \/ Illustration<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Power\/Knowledge<\/span><\/td>\nPower and knowledge are inseparable; what counts as truth is shaped by power; knowledge reinforces power; regimes of truth<\/em> organise society.<\/td>\nClassification of mental illness; medical diagnosis; distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality; changing understanding of madness (Renaissance to 19th century). Influenced by Nietzsche<\/span>.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Discourse<\/span><\/td>\nSpace where power and knowledge intersect; includes language, practices and institutions; produces subjects; marginalises some groups; power is<\/em> discourse.<\/td>\nIdentity is a product of discourse.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Disciplinary Power<\/span><\/td>\nShift from spectacular punishment (public torture, fear, terror) to modern discipline, surveillance, normalisation, reform. Works through schools, prisons, hospitals, barracks, factories, exams, records, rankings, timetables.<\/td>\nDiscipline and Punish<\/em>: prisons as places of reform, not torture.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Panopticon & Surveillance<\/span><\/td>\nBentham\u2019s prison design: inmates may always be watched; possibility of watching > actual watching; individuals internalise surveillance; self-discipline replaces coercion.<\/td>\nAttendance registers, CCTV, performance metrics, ID cards, UPI records, facial-recognition gates, social media rankings.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Governmentality<\/span><\/td>\nGovernance + mentalities; techniques and strategies to govern populations; shaping conduct through institutions and knowledge; freedom itself becomes a technique of rule.<\/td>\nSchools, hospitals, identity documents, welfare and health policies, bureaucratic categories. Nikolas Rose<\/span>: \u201cFreedom is not the opposite of government but one of its key inventions.\u201d<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Biopower<\/span><\/td>\nRegulation of life processes by modern states: health, hygiene, reproduction, birth\/death rates, population management, sexuality. Old sovereign power = right over life\/death; modern biopower = optimisation of life.<\/td>\nPopulation policies, vaccination drives, census, COVID-19 management.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Foucault: Three Modes of Objectification (via Paul Rabinow).<\/span> Dividing Practices<\/span> \u2014 Exclude threats; lepers \u2192 colonies; poor \u2192 workhouses; criminals \u2192 prisons; insane \u2192 asylums. Normal vs abnormal categories. \u2192 Scientific Classification<\/span> \u2014 Medical exam, psychiatric diagnosis, case records; hierarchical observation; power operates through surveillance, not punishment. \u2192 Subjectification<\/span> \u2014 Individuals form themselves as subjects; self-define as normal\/abnormal; comparison produces conformity; people internalise social expectations.<\/p>\n

Resistance & Criticism<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Foucault<\/span>: \u201cWhere there is power, there is resistance.\u201d Power is not absolute; individuals and groups can create counter-discourses.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Critics: Nancy Fraser<\/span> (sidelines gender; relativism risk); J\u00fcrgen Habermas<\/span> (lacks normative foundation); Steven Lukes<\/span> (neglects class\/economic structures); Charles Taylor<\/span> (overly deterministic).<\/p>\n

Significance:<\/span> Shifted power studies from repressive to productive; from state to networks; from command to normalisation; from domination to identity creation.<\/p>\n

Authority<\/h3>\n
UPSC 2015 \u00b7 15m<\/span>Distinguish between power and authority.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

Authority<\/span> = power recognised as rightful; produces compliance through moral obligation; based on a perceived right to rule. Avoids two extremes: mere persuasion vs. coercion\/violence. \u201cAuthority is the most effective instrument of exercising power in politics because it secures willing obedience.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Weber\u2019s Three Ideal Types<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Type<\/th>\nBasis<\/th>\nExamples<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Traditional<\/span><\/td>\nCustoms, traditions, hereditary rights; \u201cit has always existed.\u201d<\/td>\nMonarchies, tribal chiefs, religious leaders, British monarchy.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Charismatic<\/span><\/td>\nExceptional personal qualities; devotion; transformative; may challenge existing structures.<\/td>\nJesus, Prophet Mohammad, Gandhi, Hitler.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Legal-Rational<\/span><\/td>\nRules, procedures, law; impersonal, bureaucratic; characteristic of modern states.<\/td>\nElected officials, judges, bureaucrats, traffic rules.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
\n

\u201cEvery genuine form of domination implies a minimum of voluntary compliance.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Max Weber<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

De Jure vs De Facto Authority<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n
De Jure<\/th>\nDe Facto<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Legally sanctioned; formal right to rule.<\/td>\nActual control in practice; may lack legal sanction. Example: military government after coup has de facto authority; deposed civilian government retains de jure authority.<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Power vs Authority:<\/span> If power is a naked sword, authority is a sword in its scabbard. Authority = Power + Legitimacy.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Contemporary Importance<\/h3>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Theme<\/th>\nTheory Applied<\/th>\nExample<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Digital Power & Surveillance<\/span><\/td>\nFoucault (power\/knowledge, panopticism)<\/td>\nSocial media shapes public opinion; Facebook, Twitter influenced US elections and Brexit; Shoshana Zuboff<\/span>\u2019s surveillance capitalism<\/em>: behavioural data extraction = form of behavioural control.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Big Tech Hegemony<\/span><\/td>\nGramsci (hegemony through consent)<\/td>\nBig Tech shapes what people see, think and accept; Wall Street + finance shape norms of market society; neoliberalism recoded as common sense via algorithms. Jeremy Gilbert & Alex Williams<\/span>, Hegemony Now<\/em> (2022).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Legitimacy Crisis in Democracies<\/span><\/td>\nHabermas (legitimation crisis)<\/td>\nEconomic inequality, populism, political disenchantment, decline of institutional trust; protests in Hong Kong; demand for democratic freedoms.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Corporate Influence<\/span><\/td>\nNeo-pluralism (deformed polyarchy)<\/td>\nLobbying by MNCs; Google, Amazon shaping data privacy, tax and antitrust policy.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
International Power Shifts<\/span><\/td>\nLukes\u2019 3 dimensions; Gramsci on IR<\/td>\nUS-China rivalry: decision-making (trade war), agenda-setting (WTO rules), thought-control (global economic narratives).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Indian Politics<\/span><\/td>\nWeber (state authority), Lukes (PMO centralisation), Elite theory (political-bureaucratic-corporate elites), Pluralism (pressure groups), Foucault (surveillance, governance), Gramsci (nationalism as common sense)<\/td>\nIndia\u2019s federal institutions, PMO centralisation, Aadhaar biometric system, dominant narratives.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n
<\/span>Next<\/em>Hegemony<\/b><\/a><\/div>\n

<\/main><\/p>\n