tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post1656834144196571981..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: Is publicity an important source of power?Dan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-73462454525550761312009-07-09T06:15:30.780-04:002009-07-09T06:15:30.780-04:00A close solution could be to trace the networks of...A close solution could be to trace the networks of our world in order to make public how they work. For such a solution as way to rebuild a political project better suited to our globalized society, see for example http://yannickrumpala.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/knowledge-and-praxis-of-networks-as-a-political-project/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-22543698023988715612008-06-08T09:33:00.000-04:002008-06-08T09:33:00.000-04:00I think a more nuance and contextual concept of po...I think a more nuance and contextual concept of power is required before assessing the importance of publicity, mobilization and the internet. Power is perhaps more usefully conceptualized not as an abstract quality of an actor (be it organizational or individual) but rather as a property of a relationship. For example, I just Emerson's 1962 <A HREF="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=11805303683890354877" REL="nofollow">Power-dependence relations</A>. In Emerson's model, the power of A over B is equal to the dependence of B on A. There are some problems with that framework, but it's a huge improvement over no definition, or a hazy implicit definition that casts the social world in terms of the powerful and the powerless. <BR/><BR/>So, to the question of publicity, the most useful approach might be to ask, under what circumstances will an actor be dependent on the opinions of the public? In those cases, we would expect the mobilization of public opinion to be effective at changing an actor's behavior. Politicians up for office are more responsive than politicians in lifetime appointments, and businesses that sell resources to other businesses are presumably less responsive than businesses with brand names who rely on positive association with their image. <BR/><BR/>The "thickness" of multinational skins will depend heavily on what kind of multinational they are, what kind of public pressure is applied, and the actual avenues for action by other social actors. If politicians in a single country, for example, have a great ability to control a necessary input for the multinational, then to the extent these politicians are subject to public pressure so will the corporation. And so on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-24999625930925486712008-06-08T09:32:00.000-04:002008-06-08T09:32:00.000-04:00So, knowledge is not really power is the conclusio...So, knowledge is not really power is the conclusion I draw from this post. I agree with it, but it is very depressing.Teacher Momhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441317501525389969noreply@blogger.com