慶應総合政策 2015 II

フレーズ・解説はこちら

II

1

It is a mistake to think that power consists of just ordering others to change. You can affect their behavior by shaping their preferences [31](I. so 2. in ways 3. such) that produce what you want rather than relying on carrots and sticks to change their behavior when "push comes to shove." Sometimes you can get the outcomes you want without pushing or shoving. Ignoring this dimension by using too narrow a definition of power can lead to a poorly shaped foreign policy. In my opinion, there are three aspects of power.

2

The first aspect, or "face," of power was defined by Yale political scientist Robert Dahl in studies of New Haven in the 1950s, and it is widely used today [32](1. even though 2. as long as 3. so that) it covers only part of power behavior. This face of power focuses on the ability to get others to act in ways that are [33](1. in favor of 2. similar to 3. contrary to) their initial preferences and strategies. To measure or judge power, you have to know how strong another person's or nation's initial preferences were and how much they were changed by [34](l. their 2. your 3. its) efforts. Coercion can be quite clear in a situation in which there appears to be some degree of choice. If a man holding a gun [35](1. on 2. with 3. about) you says, "Your money or your life," you have some choice, but it is small and not consistent with your initial preferences.

3

In the 1960s, shortly after Dahl developed his widely accepted definition, political scientists Peter Bacbrach and Morton Baratz pointed out that Dahl's definition [36](1. emphasized 2. added 3. missed) what they called the "second face of power." Dahl ignored the dimension of framing and agenda-setting. If ideas and institutions can be used to frame the agenda for action in a way that makes others' preferences seem irrelevant or [37] (1. to the end 2. without limit3. out of bounds), then it may never be necessary to push or shove them. In other words, it may be possible to shape others' preferences by [38](1. betraying 2. affecting 3. answering) their expectations of what is legitimate or feasible. Agenda-framing focuses on the ability to keep issues off the table.

4

Powerful actors can make sure that the less powerful are never invited to the table, or if they get there, the rules of the game have already been set by those who arrived first. International financial policy had this characteristic, at least before the crisis of 2008 [39](1. earned things over 2. took things in 3. opened things up) somewhat when the Group of 8 (G8) was supplemented by the Group of 20 (G20). Those who are subject to this second face of power may or may not be aware of it. If they accept the legitimacy of the institutions or the social discourse that framed the agenda, they may not feel unduly constrained by the second face of power. But if the agenda of action is [40](1. contrary to 2. constrained by 3. immune to) threats of coercion or promises of payments, then it is just an instance of the first face of power. The target's acquiescence in the legitimacy of the agenda is what makes this face of power co-optive and partly constitutive of soft power―the ability to get what you want by the co-optive means of framing the agenda, persuading, and eliciting positive attraction.

5

Still later, in the 1970s, sociologist Steven Lukes pointed out that ideas and beliefs also help shape others' initial preferences. In Dahl's approach, I can exercise power over you by getting you to do what you would [41 ](1. otherwise 2. publicly 3. involuntarily) not want to do; in other words, by changing your situation, I can make you change your preferred strategy. But I can also exercise power over you by determining your very wants. I can shape your basic or initial preferences, not merely change the situation in a way that makes you change your strategy for achieving your preferences.                                          

6

This dimension of power is missed by Dahl's definition. A teenage boy may carefully choose a fashionable shirt to wear to school to attract a girl, but the teenager may not be aware that the reason the shirt is so fashionable is that a national retailer recently launched a major advertising campaign. Both his preference and that of the other teenagers [42]( 1. have been 2. should have been 3. had been being) formed by an unseen actor who has shaped the structure of preferences. If you can get others to want the same outcomes that you want, it will not be necessary to [43](1. analyze 2, follow 3. override) their initial desires. Lukes called this the "third face of power."

7

There are critical questions of voluntarism in determining how freely people choose their preferences. Not all soft power looks so soft to outside critics. In some extreme cases, it is difficult to ascertain what constitutes voluntary formation of preferences. For instance, in the "Stockholm syndrome," victims of kidnapping who suffered traumatic stress begin to identify with their abductors. But in some situations, it is more difficult to be certain of others' interests. Are Afghan women [44]( 1. depressed 2. impressed 3. oppressed) when they choose to wear a burka? What about women who choose to wear a veil in democratic France? Sometimes it is difficult to know the extent of voluntarism from mere outward appearances. To the extent that force creates a sense of awe that attracts others, it can be an indirect source of co-optive power, but if the force is directly coercive, then it is simply an instance of the first face of power.

8

Some theorists have called these the public, hidden, and invisible faces of power, [45](1. reflecting 2. maximizing 3. increasing) the degrees of difficulty that the target has in discovering the source of power. The second and third faces embody aspects of structural power. A structure is simply an arrangement of all the parts of a whole. Humans [46](1. make up for 2. are embedded in 3. keep out of) complex structures of culture, social relations, and power that affect and constrain them. A person's field of action is "delimited by actors with whom he has no interaction or communication, by actions distant in time and space, by actions of which he is, in no explicit sense, the target." Some exercises of power reflect the intentional decisions of particular actors, whereas others are the product of unintended consequences and large social forces.

9

In global politics, some goals that states seek are more [47](1. susceptible to 2. valuable to 3. comfortable with) the second and third than to the first face of power. Arnold Wolfers once distinguished between what he called "possession goals"―specific and often tangible objectives―and "milieu goals," which are often structural and intangible. For example, access to resources or a trade agreement is a possession goal, whereas promoting an open trade system, free markets, democracy, or human rights is a milieu goal. Focusing solely on [48] (1. command power 2. intangible power 3. social power), the first face of power, may mislead us about how to promote such goals.

10

The reason not to collapse all three faces of power into the first is that doing so diminishes attention to networks, which are an important type of structural power in the twenty-first century. Networks are becoming increasingly important in an information age, and positioning in social networks can be an important power resource. For example, in a hub-and-spokes network, power can derive from being the hub of communication. If you communicate with your other friends through me, that gives me power. If the points [49](1. at the front 2. in the domain 3. on the rim) are not directly connected to each other, their dependence on communication through the hub can shape their agenda. Political theorist Hannah Arendt once said that "power springs up among men when they act together." Similarly, a state can [50](1. devise 2. wield 3. lodge) global power by engaging and acting together with other states, not merely acting against them.

[51] Which of the following best matches the meaning of "when push comes to shove"in the 1st paragraph?

1. When ail the easy solutions to a problem have not worked and something more radical must be done.

2. When different problems come and go and there is no ignoring them anymore.

3. When one meets a deadlock and nothing can be done no matter how hard one tries.

4. When one feces problems the difficulty of which differs according to how one perceives those problems.

[52] Which of the following is a prime example of Dahl's theory of power?

1. The use of technological and economic assistance.

2. The use of global social networks.

3. The use of coercive military forces.

4. The use of strategic communication.

[53] What is "agenda-setting" as used in this article?

1. An actor controls the agenda of actions in such a way as to clarify the issues.

2. Power is exercised by confining the scope of decision-making to relatively safe issues.

3. Power is exercised when one party participates in the making of a final decision that affects another party.

4. Policy makers control the agenda because they need to be seen doing something.

[54] Given the four definitions of the word "co-opt" below, which one best suits the usage of the adjective form "co-optive" in the 7th paragraph?

1. To add (a person or persons) to a group by vote of those already members.

2. To appoint as an associate.

3. To persuade or lure (an opponent) to join one's own system, party, etc.

4. To make use of, for someone else's purposes.

[55] How can the second face of power avoid coercion and still exert power over others?

1. If people are put in a traumatic situation, they tend to become numb and lose the ability to judge if they have power over their preferences.

2. The second face of power exerts its command power over people invisibly, and people are not even aware of the power exerted over them.

3. Promises of payment make people more tolerant and accepting of the proposed agenda of action without further ado.

4. If people are convinced that their preferences are irrelevant or the proposed agenda is legitimate, there is no need to resist the action.

[56] What is the point of introducing the teenage boy's story in the 6ih paragraph?

1. One's preferences are subject to invisible factors.

2. People often act on the basis of their voluntary will.

3. One's preference is a prime example of a person's free will.

4. The younger tend to act more freely than the older.

[57] The Stockholm syndrome is cited in the 7lh paragraph to show that

1. a person tends to be favorably influenced by the others around him or her.

2. whether or not one's preferred action derives from one's free will is often hard to tell.

3. even a seemingly irrelevant issue like the "Stockholm syndrome" is part of the realm of power theory.

4. the interpretation of who the victim of kidnapping is depends on who has more power over the other.

[58] Which of the following describes the third face of power in this article?

1. X exercises power over Y and limits Y's choices. Y may or may not be aware of X's power.

2. X helps to shape Y's basic or initial preferences. Y is unlikely to be aware of this or to realize the effect of X's power.

3. X uses threats or rewards to change Y's behavior against Y's initial preference. Y knows this and feels the effects of X's power.

4. X forms Y's basic beliefs and preferences by changing Y's situation. Y knows what X intends to do.

[59] Which of the following is NOT an example of a milieu goal?

1. Distribution of financial aid.

2. Promotion of public diplomacy.

3. Protection of election legi timacy.

4. Establishment of international organizations.

[60] Which of the following is stated as the reason the author does not put the three faces of power together?

1. The three faces of power are mutually inclusive: the third face of power includes the second face, which, in turn, includes the first face of power.

2. The three faces of power are qualitatively different: the first face is hard power, while the second and third ones are soft power.

3. The differences between the three faces of power are a matter of visibility: the first face of power is visible, while the remaining two are invisible.

4. Less than a 3-way distinction fails to capture the relevance of networks to power: communication networks are important in assessing the power of nations.