The term 'globalisation' is commonly shorthand for 'globalising processes'. Privileging the verb rather than the noun form is a significant tactical move since we do not wish to convey the intuition that we comprehend globalisation in reified and simply naturalistic ways.
In Power: A Radical View Lukes define power rhetorically: "is it not the supreme and most insidious exercise of power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things " (1974: 24).
Steven Lukes and William Connolly argued that the exercise of power must be, to some meaningful degree, the product of choice, because a normatively compelling definition must preserve the relation between power and responsibility. According to Lukes:
The reason why identifying [the exercise of power] involves the assumption that the exerciser(s) could have acted differently - and, where they are unaware of the consequences of their action or inaction, that they could have ascertained these - is that an attribution of power is at the same time an attribution of (partial or total) responsibility for certain consequences. (Lukes; 1974: 55-6)
Lukes' dimensions of power evidence points to the misrecognition of real interests by the majority of state actors on a global scale. Thus within globalisation, generic agency has increased its tendential character towards dominant agency-and this means that the prospects for radical agency within a global civil society are more limited and co-opted than before.
Arendt define power as " Power --is actually the reality behind the use of violence". She holds that political theory needs to adopt such a new sense of power in order to achieve an adequate understanding of the nature of political rule.
Many of the characteristics of globalisation are determined by the structural power that is the development of technology particularly computers and electronic communication.
On power, Lukes concludes that there are various answers, all deeply familiar, which respond to our interests in both the outcomes and the structure of power. Perhaps this explains why, in our ordinary unreflective judgments and comparisons of structural power, we normally know what we mean and have little difficulty in understanding one another, yet every attempt at a single general answer to the question has failed and seems likely to fail. (1986, 17)
Structural power inferred from the structures of the national level to international level. Each national industry of a country's moving to the forces of globalization and offers ready indicators of its degree of integration into the global world economy.
Future developments in technology are likely to increase this tendency rather than otherwise. So, power is moving from a national to international level as the process of internationalization is just a case of developing that has characterized most of human history, the continuous expansion from the local.
Both globalisation and internationalizat