Another (I think better) way to think about this idea is that Lukes is saying that power can be wielded in three different dimensions, ranging from overt and clear deployment of power in the first dimension, to more covert deployments of power in the 2nd and 3rd dimensions. Two questions:1.) What is the difference between the first and second dimensions of power? Can you think of an example of each dimension? Looking at these examples, can you say what it is that distinguishes 2nd D from 1st D?2.) Last semester we talked about how “stringency of eligibility” (the measure of how social welfare programs’/policy’s selection criteria, rules and regulations influences different individual’s and group’s access to the program’s benefits) was an important social justice issue for social workers in particular. How is this relevant to Luke’s discussion of the second dimension of power? 3.) What is the difference between the second and third dimensions of power? Can you think of an example of each dimension? Looking at these examples, can you say what it is that distinguishes 3rd D from 2nd D?4.) Lukes and also Gaventa refer to the notion of “false consciousness”. This is a concept, borrowed from Marxist Class Analysis, that focuses on how poor, oppressed and marginalized people can sometimes identify with interests of the classes and groups that oppress them.A. To which of Lukes’ three faces of power does this concept correspond? B.) What do think about the concept of False Consciousness? Lets keep in mind that the term is used by many different commentators, scholars and advocates for various reasons.C.) What does it suggest about the agency and even basic mental capacity of poor and oppressed persons? Why is this issue potentially problematic for advocates interested in advancing the authentic voices of poor, marginalized and oppressed communities in the claims making process?