GRE写作Issue部分精品素材分享之政治类权力与知识

北京GRE培训,GRE备考资料,GRE网课,GRE培训机构,GRE保分班,GRE真题,GRE课程

想要在GRE作文部分的考试中写出优秀的文章，论据素材是重要的一环。好的论据不仅能帮助你支撑观点，加强说服力，还能体现出考生在阅读量上的积累和深厚扎实的语言功底基础。特别是ISSUE作文，更是需要大量好素材作为储备，才能保证考生无论遭遇那种题目，都能游刃有余地完成一篇高分作文的写作。小编为大家整理了GRE

ISSUE作文各类题目的精品优质素材，一起来看吧。

权力与知识

Foucault’s works analyze the link between power and knowledge. He outlines a

form of covert power that works through people rather than only on them.

Foucault claims belief systems gain momentum (and hence power) as more people

come to accept the particular views associated with that belief system as common

knowledge (hegemony). Such belief systems define their figures of authority,

such as medical doctors or priests in a church. Within such a belief system—or

discourse—ideas crystallize as to what is right and what is wrong, what is

normal and what is deviant. Within a particular belief system certain views,

thoughts or actions become unthinkable.

These ideas, being considered undeniable “truths”, come to define a

particular way of seeing the world, and the particular way of life associated

with such “truths” becomes normalized. This subtle form of power lacks rigidity

and other discourses can contest it. Indeed, power itself lacks any concrete

form, occurring as a locus of struggle. Resistance, through defiance, defines

power and hence becomes possible through power. Without resistance, power is

absent, but it would be a mistake, some recent writers insist, to attribute to

Foucault an oppositional power-resistance schema as is found in many older,

foundationalist theoreticians. This view “grants” individuality to people and

other agencies, even if it is assumed a given agency is part of what power works

in or upon. Still, in practice Foucault often seems to deny individuals this

agency, which is contrasted with sovereignty (the old model of power as

efficacious and rigid).

权力的理性选择框架

Game theory, with its foundations in the theory of Rational Choice, is

increasingly used in various disciplines to help analyze power relationships.

One rational choice definition of power is given by Keith Dowding in his book

Power.

In rational choice theory, human individuals or groups can be modeled as

“actors” who choose from a “choice set” of possible actions in order to try and

achieve desired outcomes. An actor’s “incentive structure” comprises (its

beliefs about) the costs associated with different actions in the choice set,

and the likelihoods that different actions will lead to desired outcomes.

理性权力选择框架的应用

A rational choice framework of power can be used to model a wide range of

social interactions where actors have the ability to exert power over others.

For example, a “powerful” actor can take options away from another’s choice set;

can change the relative costs of actions; can change the likelihood that a given

action will lead to a given outcome; or might simply change the other’s beliefs

about its incentive structure.

As with other models of power, this framework is neutral as to the use of

“coercion”. For example: a threat of violence can change the likely costs and

benefits of different actions; so can a financial penalty in a “voluntarily

agreed” contract, or indeed a friendly offer.

卢克斯观点： 一维权力的三要素

The seminal work of Steven Lukes’ Power: A radical view (1974) was developed

from a talk he was once invited to give in Paris. In this brief book, Lukes

outlines two dimensions through which power had been theorized in the earlier

part of the twentieth century (dimensions 1 and 2 below) which he criticized as

being limited to those forms of power that could be seen. To these he added a

third “critical” dimension which built upon insights from Gramsci and Althusser.

In many ways this work evolves alongside of the writing of Foucault and serves

as a good introduction to his thoughts on power.

One-dimensional:

1. Power is decision making

2. Exercised in formal institutions

3. Measure it by the outcomes of decisions

In his own words, Lukes states that the “one-dimensional view of power

involves a focus on behavior in the making of decisions on issues over which

there is an observable conflict of (subjective) interests, seen as express

policy preferences, revealed by political participation”.