Hidden power

Also known as Lukes' Three Dimensions of Power (1974), and discussed in "Hidden Power in Marriage" by Komter (1989).

Lukes' theory was developed in response to Foucault's more traditional perspective on power, which theorised power as coming from scientific knowledge, "truth," and an inability of individuals to escape from institutional power (Foucault, 1984). Lukes (1974) criticised Foucault for being 'ultraradical', and proposed his own theory in his publication Power: A Radical View, focusing on domination and the dynamic between the dominator - either as an individual, or an institution - and the dominated. He separates power into three different dimensions, emphasising the importance of the third:

1) First Dimension: aka overt, manifest, or decision-making power
This first dimensional power surfaces with visible outcomes such as attempts to change, conflicts, and strategies. It focuses on the expression of power through conscious decision-making, and is the easiest to observe through the individual or institution that dominates and makes the ultimate decision during a conflict. Example: a father decides that his daughter should eat spaghetti for dinner.

2) Second Dimension: aka covert, latent, or non-decision-making power.
Second dimensional power occurs when the needs and wishes of the more powerful person are anticipated by the less powerful, or when the reasons for not desiring or not attempting change or refraining from conflict stem from resignation in anticipation of a negative reaction or fear of jeopardizing the relationship. This is considered "non-decision-making" power as it is essentially the ability to 'set the agenda' of the discourse between two actors, deciding that certain topics should not be discussed and exerting power to prevent it.
Example: a daughter decides to not suggest eating pizza to her father, as she knows he will get angry at her.

3) Third Dimension: aka ideological, hidden or invisible power.
Third dimensional power is embedded in existing social practices. Komter (1989: 192) writes, “The effects of invisible power generally escape awareness of the people involved.” Because it is invisible, when one person benefits from this form of power by, for example, controlling the decision-making in an arena without any discussion or dispute, it is seen as the natural way it should be. It is the power to influence the thoughts and wishes of others, often causing them to act against what would be most beneficial for themselves, requiring both domination and acquiescence of the dominated. The dominated hence will take on the wishes of the dominant. This dimension is characterised by the lack of conscious decision-making by the dominated, and is concerned with the idea of superficial consent and agreement by the weaker party.

Example: a daughter accepts the spaghetti from her father without even considering suggesting her favourite food, pizza.

Notes or Limitations
Lukes' asserts that the importance of power lies in its ability to “...fix responsibility for consequences”. This means that according to Lukes', if an actor is not expected to know of a consequence, or does not perceive their effect on the other, then they are unable to choose an alternative route and cannot be implicated. This results in limitations on the number and types of scenarios Lukes' theory can be effectively applied.

Additionally, both the second and third dimensions can be deemed difficult to observe and measure given their covert and/or invisible nature. In response to this, Lukes identifies two key steps: first, to identify any and all counterfactuals - alternative routes or decisions that could have been made - and second, the mechanism of power that is used. Through this, he determines power through exploring possibilities of what the actor may have done, and therefore acknowledging whether there was an exercise of power through this.

References

Foucault, M., & Rabinow, P. (1984). The means of correct training.
Komter, A. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender & Society, 3(2), 187-216.
Lukes, S. (1974). A radical view. London.