Borrowing from Lukes, Gaventa identifies three analytical dimensions that are the proper study of social power.[8]
The "one-dimensional" approach involves direct empirical observations of openly contested public issues.[8][9] It involves defining and framing these issues in terms of identifiable **winners and losers**, and reflects the traditional pluralist approach to the study of community power.[8][9] The "second dimension" involves the addition of what Gaventa calls the **"mobilization of bias"**, through which Cultural Hegemony is both asserted and legitimized.[8] This happens through the **control of the agenda** setting thanks to prior rules. Empirically, Gaventa's contribution is to develop a method for examining the various channels through which those in power transform concerns, claims, and potential challenges about inequitable outcomes into "non-decisions". The "third dimension" therefore adds the capacity to influence expectations about social outcomes by manipulating symbols and ideology so that **inequities themselves become "non-issues."**[8]
Citizen Action and National Policy Reform opens: "How can **ordinary citizens** - and the organizations and movements which they engage - **make changes in national policies** which affect their lives, and the lives of others around them?"
In Gaventa's theory, methodological subjectivity allows the **framing of a social problem, and a social solution, to arise from within the group**, thereby empowering and better enabling the group to **take collective action in the face of authorities' power to frame issues as non-issues in the public's mind**.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gaventa#:~:text=Research%20on-,community,-power
HEIGHT 400
Wikipedia 