Goventi over Bachrach: Power Needing Focus
	Bachrach, Baratz, and Schattsschneck all assert that power needs to be focused not on the benefit of B, but to make sure the “social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A.” While this may be effective for those behind the powers of A, they provide no real benefit to B whatsoever. This is where Gramsci and Gaventa come in with the third face of power, the clearly more compelling structure, where “B, the relatively powerless, may recognize grievances against A, but desist from challenge because B’s conceptions of self, group, or class may be such as to make actions against A seem inappropriate.” While B may not be getting its way, or benefiting entirely from the relationship, it is not directly from A’s decisions. A has made its concepts and ideals the norm, while focusing any negativity towards C, a more humane manner of manipulating B.

“Power is exercised not just upon participants within the decision-making process but also towards the exclusion of certain participants and issues altogether.” The clearest example of how the second face of power is not effective in achieving any of the goals of party B would be in the Power and Participation reading, which discussed how in Newark, New Jersey, urban blacks were being taken advantage of thanks to this system of power. “The plurality of actors and interests…displayed remarkable capacity to move against some rather modest lower class claims.” (Page 5 of the PDF, 10 of the book). The basis of this second face is to make sure that while some objectives are met of the agenda are met, others are shot down early on as insurance, usually guaranteeing some type of benefit for party A. “One of the most important aspects…is not to prevail in a struggle, but to predetermine the agenda of the struggle—to determine whether certain questions ever reach the competition stage.” Things that benefit party B are not at all guaranteed by their actions, but at party A’s discretion, making it a much more unfair system towards party B than the third face of power is.

The easiest example given within Power and Participation is Brave New World. In the work, culture and society revolve around having soma, enjoying life, and being carefree while living within your caste system. From an outsiders perspective, this society is horrifically unfair, the Alpha class being genetically manipulated to be superior to the Delta class. However, from within this system, none of them worry about where the lie. They instead focus their concerns onto other, more mundane tasks. party A (the Alphas) put power onto party C (the Deltas) who are too preoccupied with party/problem C (taking soma, participating in their orgies, etc.). While their needs are largely met, any injustices are no directly the fault of party A, but a result of the failures of party C.

When it comes down to it, Bachrach, Baratz, and Schattsschneck all saw power as “party A directly acting upon and causing any injustices for party B.” Whether or not they picked up on it, it was still their fault, someone was directly to blame for any problems. With Gramsci and Gaventa, no one is directly at fault, it’s all party C’s fault. It allows for both a level of deniability. They specifically said “work in the coal mine for longer for less pay to defeat the commie bastards,” but whenever something went wrong, it was “those commie bastards” fault, which appears more fair to party B.