Lasswell's Value Theory
Resconstructed as Means*Richard W. Chadwick
Lasswell's Values as Attributes and Relations
Attributes Relations (Lasswell: "welfare values") (Lasswell: "deference values") ---------------------------- ------------------------------ Health Wealth Affection Power Enlightenment Skill Rectitude RespectLasswell categorized values in terms of "deference" and "welfare." "Deference" simply refers to one accepting the cues or instructions of another. One "defers" to another's opinions, beliefs, desires, directives. A "welfare" value represented stored worth, a "stock" or ability of some type. More generally, one can say that Lasswell's welfare values are valued attributes, and deference values are valued relations.Lasswell's idea of "deference" points to the control aspect of human relations. For instance: why does one person follow the lead of another? Because they fear the other (Lasswell: power), love the other (affection), feel it is expected traditionally (respect), or simply because it is the right thing to do, i.e., good for society (rectitude). But we can think of "relations" in general rather than in terms of a particular characteristic of a relation, in this case, passivity vs. activity. Relations such as of affection or love, need not be only passive or active, or submissive vs. dominant; they can and often are more mutual or interactive.
Leo Bogee, for instance, describes leaders as dominant vs. easy-going. The easy-going leader isn't submissive but rather more attentive to a situation, taking time to evaluate, and then takes action; while the dominant leader tends more to take an action then evaluate the outcome and think about future action. "Relations" rather than "deference" leaves room for both the dominant and easy-going styles to be described as more or less powerful or empowered in a relationship, rather than conceptualizing empowerment as a zero- or constant-sum.
Of course, thinking of "relations" in general rather than "deference" relations in particular, still permits one to characterize a relationship as coercive or attractive in nature. Lasswell was principally concerned with power as coercive influence, that is, influence based on the fear of deprivation. He characterized the politicization of a relationship as introducing into it a severe threat to something highly valued. Politics then, was about the management of coercive relations. It was therefore natural for him to use the term "deference" to refer to such values as respect and affection because it was the threat of deprivation of such values that concerned him.
Lasswell's concern with coercion needlessly limits application of his values typology to coercive relations when in fact the typology applies to attractive relations as well. Would he, for instance, have thought about "whether it is better to be feared than loved" (Machiavelli) in politics? One would doubt whether the question could arise within his framework, since it would be the fear induced by a threat of deprivation of love that would be of interest, and even such deprivation only in the context of power assessments. Thus there may be much to gain by broadening the application of the typology to include, say, empowerment, cooperation, collaboration, and competition, by giving (hence attracting) rather than coercing.
A Possibility of Non-coercive Government?
By way of caveats, it might be that Lasswell's specific limitation of power to coercive influence serves to limit the scope of what is meant by politics in a clearer way than political scientists had done previously. Morgenthau's famous definition of power as the ability to control the minds of men, for instance, is richly evocative, but in equal measure much more poetic than practical. Further, Lasswell's definition enables a distinction between politics and governance. Some aspects of government, for instance, are political in his definition, and some not, such as military preparedness vs. welfare. Similarly, it helps to observe that some aspects of social relations are political and some not. It also introduces a new meaning to authority; traditionally, authority has been conceived of as "legitimate power," but if we define power as coercive influence, we are lead to a broader concept of authority as legitimate influence. (Is there even a word for legitimate, attractive influence vs. coercive influence? The closest I know of is persuasion but that connotes more appeal to reason than intention). Finally, his definition raises questions such as whether the "essence of politics" is the socialization and management or containment of coercive influence between people, organizations, and governments, and not influence in general. If so, it makes understandable the idea of "the end of politics" and "the end of government" while still having cooperative, collaborative and competitive relations between people and organizations at all levels, even the global. A clear line between the forces that repel and deprive, and those that attract and fulfill, is drawn in a way no other political philosopher has that I recall.The "Inner"/"Outer" Nature of Lasswell's Values
The I Ching--an ancient text of Chinese philosophy--uses a simple distinction between "inner" and "outer" which suggests an insight as to how Lasswell's value framework can be interpreted as a series of complementarities or "levels of analysis," specifically between values which characterize what is "inside" vs. "outside" the individual.
Regarding attributes, or what Lasswell refers to as "welfare values," his "wealth" is outside, and health or "well-being" inside, yet both reflect the same general characteristic. "Inner wealth" is health, "outer health" is wealth. Similarly, recall Bogee's definition of self-worth vs. self-esteem: self-worth is how much one values oneself, hence inner wealth or mental health, while self-esteem is what one believes about how much others value oneself, hence "outer health." Next consider Lasswell's "enlightenment" and "skill" which are complementary: "inner skill" is enlightenment, "outer enlightenment," skill.
Regarding relations, or what Lasswell refers to as "deference values," one's sense of moral dignity or what is right, is "inner respect" or rectitude; whereas paying respect to others by virtue of custom and social position is on the "outside," i.e., a social behavior rather than an inner evaluation.
Lasswell's other two "deference values," power and affection, appear to be both "inner" and "outer" values, in that they each refer to both inner motivation and outer behavior. Power is defined as coercive influence, influence created by an external threat of severe deprivation or destruction of something highly valued; typically, it is presumed to be intentional. Affection, conversely, is an attraction towards another person or relationship, influence created by an inner desire for or appreciation of something or someone.
Anticipated Situation desired | feared | | | -------------------| outside | | power | Source -----------------------| inside |affection | | -------------------Some situations, in other words, some situations are undesirable and presumed to be made increasingly likely by others actions unless we do something about it; while other situations are desirable and the possibility of increasing their likelihood motivates us to take action to realize them. Thus "power" is inherently alienating, while affection is unifying, integrating, and bonding. Power is destructive; affection constructive--at least the way Lasswell uses these terms.Note, however, that what is "power" vs. "affection" is relative to the observer. What one person or group or nation fears another may desire. What one person sees as an act of creation another may see as act of destruction. One person's community building may be another's destruction of a forest or some wetland wildlife habitat. The creation of Israel was also the destruction of Palestine. The creation of the USA was also the destruction of hundreds of native American communities. In the ancient I Ching, or Book of Transformation, Ch'ien and K'un are given another conotation: Ch'ien may be thought of as creative power in the sense of being able to plan and envision, hence to transform what is, hence destruction; K'un may be thought of as "receptive power," the power to realize a plan, hence the implication of "affection" for the plan. I think this way of interpreting power and affection--that is, the use of the ideas of planning and realizing, thus conceptualizing creation and destruction as one transformative process--shows better the relationship between the two, and enables us to think more clearly about the nature of political and social relations in general.
Lasswell's Values Interpreted as Means by which to Attain Maslow's Basic Needs
Lasswell's "values" are not values in the sense of "ends" or of ultimate concerns, goals to be valued for themselves ("expressive" values) but rather were valued as means ("instrumental" values) to such ends. I had been studying Maslow's checklist of values, and had come to consider them "basic needs," i.e., ultimate ends for our species (e.g., survival of life, humanity in particular). From this viewpoint, Lasswell's value checklist appeared to be a list of typically used to attain and maintain goals defined in terms of Maslow's list of basic needs.Lasswell's Values as I Ching Symbols *
Attributes Relations (Lasswell: "welfare values") (Lasswell: "deference values") ---------------------------- ------------------------------ inner outer inner outer ------ -------- ---------- -------- Health Wealth Affection Power Enlightenment Skill Rectitude Respect Corresponding symbols from the I Ching: Tui Sun K'un Ch'ien Li K'an Chen Ken
* The impetus for reconstructing Lasswell's value theory in terms of an I Ching conceptual framework, grew out of an discussions over several years with Chung-ying Cheng (a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hawaii) and Everett Kleinjans (past President of the Preah Sihanouk Raj Academy, Phnom Penh, past President of the East-West Center, Honolulu, and past Professor of Humanities at Hawaii Pacific University). I suggested in one of Cheng's presentation's of the I Ching pa gua to us that Lasswell's value framework might well be mapped to the I Ching, for instance, that Li appeared to represent enlightenment, Ch'ien power, K'un affection, and Ken respect. He, Kleinjans, and I completed the picture (we have separately published a number of articles on this subject, as well as made a number of joint presentations in China arranged by Cheng). Cheng provided the depth of interpretation that led to the link between Tui and health, and between Chen and rectitude, for instance. And Kleinjans suggested that Lasswell's notion of power, while consistent with some aspects of Ch'ien, represented only the coercive and destructive sides of power, not the attractive, creative and constructive sides.Bibliography
- Lasswell, Harold D., and Abraham Kaplan, Power & Society: a Framework for Political Inquiry. 1950: Yale University Press, New Haven.
- Chadwick, Richard W., "Social Justice and the Politics of Democracy," in James C. Hsiung and Chung-ying Cheng, Distribution of Power and Rewards, 1991: University Press of America, Lanham, Md., pp. 63-80.