Social and Critical Psychology

Power Lens Laboratory

Five things are known about the air in a fictional college's workshop block. You will read the same five items three times, using three different analyses of power, and end up with three different lists of things to go and change.

Fictional case - Brackwell College, its committee papers and its staff exist only here

Learning objective

By the end you should be able to apply three analyses of power to one case, and say what each explains well, leaves in shadow, and implies as a remedy.

About 15 minutes. Nothing is timed, and nothing you select is saved or sent anywhere.

This is not a matching exercise

You will not be asked which theorist said what. Each lens arrives as a question rather than a name, and the task is always what happens to this evidence when you ask it. None of the three is the correct answer.

How to use this

  1. Read the case file and commit to an answer to the question below.
  2. For each lens in turn, select the evidence it brings into focus.
  3. Read what the lens actually makes visible, what it leaves less visible, and the remedy that follows from it.
  4. Compare all three side by side at the synthesis stage.
  5. Then apply what you have to a different case.

The case file

Brackwell College, a fictional further-education college. For three years there have been reports about fumes, headaches and a persistent smell in Workshop 3. Nothing has been done. These five items are everything a review found, and every lens gets all five.

    Before you start: what best describes what happened at Brackwell?

    What each lens commits you to

    A framework's blind spot is not a fault that could be patched. It is the direct consequence of the thing that makes it useful, and each of these three buys its clarity with a specific commitment.

    Decisions, agendas and shaped preferences

    Commits you to the idea that there are real interests being thwarted - that the technicians would want something different if the situation were different. That is a strong claim about people's real interests, made by an analyst who is not them, and it has been the standing objection to this account since it was first put.

    Strongest where somebody could have acted and did not. Weakest where nobody is in charge of the thing doing the damage.

    Knowledge, classification and normalisation

    Commits you to treating power as productive and dispersed rather than held. That is what lets it see a definition or a classification as an exercise of power. It is also why it struggles to say who should be held responsible, or whose interests were served, without importing a vocabulary it has set aside.

    Strongest on the machinery that keeps running by itself. Weakest where somebody needs to be answerable.

    Credibility and interpretive resources

    Commits you to locating the wrong in an epistemic relation: who is believed, and what vocabulary is available to say things with. That makes a specific and often invisible harm nameable. It can also make an institutional problem look like a problem of individual virtue, and a budget line or a performance measure will keep working whatever anybody believes.

    Strongest on what happens to a speaker. Weakest on machinery that does not need a speaker at all.

    Challenge - a different case

    Ferrand Borough Council, also fictional. A three-year backlog of repairs on one estate has been reported to councillors as a resourcing problem. A review establishes four things. The repairs contractor is paid against a single measure, jobs closed per week. A job that is reopened within twenty-eight days is counted as a new job. Residents' calls are logged by the first keyword an operator selects from a fixed list of twelve. The tenants' association has asked in each of the last four years for "damp" to be added to that list, and no decision on the request has ever been recorded.

    What this demonstrates

    Three accounts of power pick out three different things in the same case: a decision nobody had to make, a definition that produces the outcome a decision would have had to produce, and a speaker who is not believed. Each brings some of the evidence into focus and leaves the rest in shadow, and the remedy each implies leaves the others running. Which lens you reach for decides what counts as the problem.