We very much appreciate the opportunity to respond to the thoughtful, though often critical, revi... more We very much appreciate the opportunity to respond to the thoughtful, though often critical, review of Powercube by Laurence Cox. And we also appreciate the fact that the Journal of Political Power is willing to devote a few of its pages to a review of a website (www.powercube.net), surely an innovation for academic journals that have long focused on academic books in their review columns. While expressing some appreciation for the resources of the website, Cox has also offered a number of critiques. There are many, but broadly summarised, these include that (a) the website does not sufficiently address the macro causes of power, particularly through a historical and more structural lens; (b) it is ‘oriented in particular towards the problems of relatively isolated, issue-focused campaigning groups’ not broader movements for change; and (c) it favours a reformist approach to change through engaging in existing institutional settings, rather than promoting more popular and radical alternatives. We do not accept this reading. In our response we first want to discuss what the Powercube is supposed to be and what it is not; who is involved and who has taken it up, and some of ways that it is being used. Then we will go on to discuss some of Cox’s more specific critiques, and finally come back to the broader questions of models of social change which are implicit in the Powercube approach. First, let’s start with what the Powercube approach is meant to be. The introduction to the website, as well as the pdf version, states very clearly that this approach is only one modest approach to understanding power for social change. It has grown very particularly out of long years of experience of those of us involved, both as activists and thinkers on power. As the approach, was picked up and found to be useful by others engaged in a variety of struggles and settings, the website became an open attempt to share approaches, and thinking with others, and to invite their thoughts and approaches, in a way that we hoped would be evolving and iterative. So in this sense, Cox is right, it does not give a macro-historical view of the shaping of institutional structural power; nor does it claim to. It does not treat all theorists of power equally – nor does it claim to. It is a resource, not a theory, a lens to think about change, not an encyclopaedia or a prescription of how this should happen.
We very much appreciate the opportunity to respond to the thoughtful, though often critical, revi... more We very much appreciate the opportunity to respond to the thoughtful, though often critical, review of Powercube by Laurence Cox. And we also appreciate the fact that the Journal of Political Power is willing to devote a few of its pages to a review of a website (www.powercube.net), surely an innovation for academic journals that have long focused on academic books in their review columns. While expressing some appreciation for the resources of the website, Cox has also offered a number of critiques. There are many, but broadly summarised, these include that (a) the website does not sufficiently address the macro causes of power, particularly through a historical and more structural lens; (b) it is ‘oriented in particular towards the problems of relatively isolated, issue-focused campaigning groups’ not broader movements for change; and (c) it favours a reformist approach to change through engaging in existing institutional settings, rather than promoting more popular and radical alternatives. We do not accept this reading. In our response we first want to discuss what the Powercube is supposed to be and what it is not; who is involved and who has taken it up, and some of ways that it is being used. Then we will go on to discuss some of Cox’s more specific critiques, and finally come back to the broader questions of models of social change which are implicit in the Powercube approach. First, let’s start with what the Powercube approach is meant to be. The introduction to the website, as well as the pdf version, states very clearly that this approach is only one modest approach to understanding power for social change. It has grown very particularly out of long years of experience of those of us involved, both as activists and thinkers on power. As the approach, was picked up and found to be useful by others engaged in a variety of struggles and settings, the website became an open attempt to share approaches, and thinking with others, and to invite their thoughts and approaches, in a way that we hoped would be evolving and iterative. So in this sense, Cox is right, it does not give a macro-historical view of the shaping of institutional structural power; nor does it claim to. It does not treat all theorists of power equally – nor does it claim to. It is a resource, not a theory, a lens to think about change, not an encyclopaedia or a prescription of how this should happen.
Uploads
Papers by Jethro Pettit