- vol.32, no.2, pp.3-18,140, 1987
According to Lukes' suggestions, most of the conventional views of power like the pluralist and the reformist one, which have even taken power as relationship, presuppose a priori that one's consciousness of interests is built up by his autonomous choice. However this presupposition precludes the investigation which examines some kind of power effects by the powerful over the formation of the powerless' interest consciousness.<br> Agreeing with Lukes, I deny the presupposition and try to make a conceptual apparatus which helps us understand the power over the interest consciousness. In order to typify the consciousness concerning with the power exercised by the powerful, two criteria are induced, which are not distinguished clearly in Lukes' theory. One is a criterion by which one's interest consciousness can be judged as either built up by his autonomous choice or imposed by the power of the kind. Another is a helpful criterion for us to make a distinction between the morally or normatively relevant consciousness of interests and irrelevant one. There can be four types of the consciousness made by these two criteria. ( 1 ) rational consciousness ; Interest consciousness which is made autonomously by the subject and is normatively relevant. ( 2 ) irrational consciousness ; Interest consciousness formed up autonomously, being normatively irrelevant. ( 3 ) pseudo-rational consciousness ; Interest consciousness which is canalized by the power exerted by other(s) and is in normative relevance. ( 4 ) absurd consciousness ; Interest consciousness canalized by the power, being normatively irrelevant.<br> The kinds of the power which impose the powerless either the pseudo-rational consciousness or the absurd one are analyzed in the terms of the theory on the formation of interest consciousness and are named power of enlightenment and power of meaning deprivation respectively.