{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03209876543209877, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032921810699588477, 'mean_word_length': 4.902912621359223, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Steven Lukes's Radical View of Power

The short volume Power: A Radical View* is a major salvo in the long, ingrown debate about power in which 'pluralist' has been pitted against 'neo-elitist.' Lukes's supporters will remember the neat layout of his "three faces of power," and will appreciate the leverage he provides for questioning pluralist doctrine; his critics will focus upon the methodological and epistemological problems which are dodged by this agile thinker. Both groups have been given much to work with. The essay—for it is only 50 pages long—is very bold. Lukes first sketches three views of pcver, a 'view' being a way of identifying cases of power in the real world (27). First is the pluralist view associated with Dahl, Polsby, and Wolfinger, which deals with observable behaviour in the making of decisions about issues on which there is an overt conflict of preferences. Lukes's criticisms of this approach follow those of Bachrach and Baratz, the chief proponents of the 'two-dimensional' view. This second stance allows unarticulated preferences, so conflict need not be overt and the threat of power's exercise may be enough to control political agendas and prevent issues from arising. But