Debates about the nature of power became particularly focused in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s in the field of political science. During this time, scholars attempted to examine systematically the issue of who holds and exercises power in society (note the dominance of the thing or possession view of power here). Attempts to answer this question developed roughly into two camps: the pluralists and the elitists

The debate between these two camps became known as the community power debate. The pluralists argued that power was equitably distributed throughout society and that no particular group had undue influence over decision-making processes. The elitists, on the other hand, claimed that power was concentrated in the hands of a privileged few who controlled political agendas. The elitists, on the other hand, claimed that power was concentrated in the hands of a privileged few who controlled political agendas.

The pluralists adopted what can be called a one-dimensional view of power, while the elitists developed a two-dimensional view of power. Let’s examine the two perspectives more closely. Power is exercised when people’s behaviors are affected in some way (i.e., people are persuaded to do something or persuaded not to do something). This three-dimensional view of power therefore argues that conflict (either overt or covert) is not a necessary condition for the exercise of power.