My answer to Nick didn't make it to the whole group. I agreed with everything he said. Now Steve's post really has started me thinking: the "power is corruption" is starting to resonate with me. Also the "power of not being there".
I think there is something really, really important in what Steve is saying. There is a tension in the power equation. The Aikido metaphor is an apt one. Russ #3 On May 16, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > Nick, > > Thanks for changing the thread and trying to lay the groundwork carefully > here. >> Russ, >> It is my deepest belief that if our country is to survived, people who >> disagree need to learn to argue with each other. You and I really disagree >> on this one, so on my account, we are obligated to argue. > I take a slight exception to your use of the term argue, but concede that > many call "argument" what I call "discussion". I use argument to be > entirely a device of rhetoric rather than of logic. I am interested in > rhetoric (my own or others) only insomuch as can be a compelling method for > constructing alternative hypothesis to consider logically. > > I therefore believe that when people disagree significantly on an important > topic, they are bound to argue as an alternative to logical discussion, each > simultaneously trying to persuade the other while maintaining self-persuasion > in the face of what might very well be a persuasive alternative argument from > the other. >> On the other hand, I DON'T believe that others should unwillingly be a >> party to such arguments, so I changed the thread. > I'm relatively facile with e-mail and threads myself so I find it only a > minor burden when threads get hijacked, but in the interest of clarity and > thoughtfulness, I think you have done a good thing here. >> We obviously agree that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts >> absolutely. So, we are both made nervous when power starts to accumulate >> in small numbers of hands And I bet we believe, both, that having power >> leads to the accumulation of more of it. .And, we both seem to agree that >> dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power are occuring in our society, >> right now? >> > I would "argue" that power *is* corruption. "power" has a dualism which we > seem often to ignore, where we use the term "personal power" as if it is the > same thing as the power you are describing. We speak of our innate, > inherent ability to make decisions and take action as "power" and we then > notice that we grant others the right or ability to persuade (or intimidate) > us in our decisions and (therefore) actions. We call that "giving others our > power" or more euphemistically, "asserting our power". I believe a > qualitative thing happens at this point and "power" is not equal to "power" > even though it seems to be the same thing. There is something alchemical > that happens when we grant others the "use" of our personal "power". > > My point is, that all "dangerous, irreversible accumulations of power" are > the consequence of this alchemical transformation which we all volunteer for > at some level. What if they held a war and nobody came? What if labor > simply refused to serve capital. What if capital simply refused to serve > labor? What would Ghandi do? What if we could all stayed home and tended > our gardens well? > > I believe the rhetoric of our modern political and social discourse is flawed > to the core on the topic of "power". We treat it with the same reverence > that we treate "emergence". Most of us aspire to power in some way at some > time in our life, wanting to be "the boss of other people" in some way. Most > of us benefit from the power that we inherit from the collective we have > given over to. We are members of a class (many or most of us professional > class) in a first world, nominally free-market, nominally democratic, > nominally representative society/culture who benefits significantly from the > labors and deference of the third world. We enjoy the use of their hands > and their raw materials (minerals, fuels, plant products) in return for (at > best) a modest taste of our lifestyle (pop culture, junk food, throw-away > consumer-goods). >> OK, so far? Where we seem to disagree is where the dangerous power is >> accumulating in our society. I think it is in large corporations; you >> think it is in governments. Still on board? > I'm not Russ (any of them) but I want to hijack your argument at least a > little bit, to remind us all that governments (superpowers or 2-bit > temporary juntas) and corporations (large or small) are precisely creatures > of collective power and that there is not a magic threshold where power > starts to corrupt. There may be thresholds where we begin to notice, or we > begin to be offended (or scared or obviously harmed) by the accumulations, > but I submit that our conception of power is flawed and that Pogo said it all > in "We have met the enemy, and they is us". We not only submit to these > constructions/accumulations of power, we aspire to them, we cheer > hysterically when our candidate wins, or the companies we invest in succeed > in hostile takeovers or major deals to exploit (gently, cleanly, greenly of > course) some newly recognized resource in some previously un(der)exploited > region of the world. > We think we "must" give over our power because in our vernacular, the only > way to meet/blunt/turn/reject power is *with power*. Even when we seem to be > taking our power back, we are being profligate and arbitrary. Power to the > People! Black Power! Brown Power! White Power! GynoPower! PowWow Power! Pow > Pow Pow!... Power! Back off, I'm a Scientist Power ("I can solve world > hunger, I'll just turn them all to green glass!")! > We have at least one Aikido practicioner on this list and I think there are > critical perspectives to be offered by that practice on this topic relative > to the many other martial arts. For those with an affinity for Jui Jitsu or > Tae Kwon Do or Kung Fu Fighting (fast as lightning!) or Shotokan or ... you > know how to use the opponent's power against herself, how to focus your > power, how to apply your power most advantageously... or is there another > way? What is the power of "not being there" when power is directed at you? > Is there a different question to which these methods of managing/using power > are not relevant? >> Why don't I stop there, and see if you agree with this characterization of >> our disagreement. > Apologizing for adding a 3rd (and long-winded) voice to what might be a > complicated enough argument (discussion), I submit that this discussion will > be served by more clarity about power. The argument of who to blame (Gov't > or Corp) for our powerlessness has some strong motivation (even for me who is > trying to offer a different question) but it might be moot if we can ask (and > answer) the more fundamental questions of how (and more key why) we give our > power up so thoughtlessly (yet self-righteously and with utmost confidence in > its effectiveness). > > As product consumers we throw our "buying power" around like there is no > tomorrow... we seek the cheapest price or the "best value" (by some arcane > measure or another) without (much if any) regard to the hidden (social, > ecological, ... ) costs. As ideology consumers, we throw our "mind share" > into the pool even more profiglately. We give over to "git er' done" and > "hope and change" like sugar or caffiene or nicotine or crack cocaine. We > demand little of our political candidates except a good PR department who can > hand us sound-bites, photo-ops, and bumper stickers crafted for our > degenerate palates. We leave our TV running 24/7 on Fox News (or PBS or BBC) > and the programmed radio stations in our cars (and on our streaming internet > radio) are set to various Right-Wing Shock-Talk Dipstick (Rush, Savage, > O'Reilly, Imus ...) stations or alternatively to Pacifica or Air America or > NPR and PRN and BBC. We know what we believe before we even start talking > which we do before we start thinking which we do before we start listening > which we do before we start observing which we do only grudgingly when we > think we are bored because we have no TV or Radio or Newspaper or Blog (or > Mail Discussion List) to focus on. > What if we have this entirely backwards? What if we create (we are) our own > oppressors (Gov't and Corp) only to rail at them (ourselves and each other, > thinly disguised as "Them!") and use one as the excuse to dump our power > (economic and political) into the other rather than take the excruciatingly > simple yet difficult path of seeking to hold our own power close and use it > wisely within the scope of our limited and frail human ability. Gov's and > Corp's have no magic answers, they know nothing we do not, and are ignorant, > unrighteous and unwise by their nature. We cannot construct a better Gov or > Corp, we can at best, only mitigate their worst flaws, serving only to seduce > us into believing in their wisdom and righteousness (again, some more, > forever). > > It is always easier to rail (or rant) than it is to think which is always > easier than to act with deep care. See *me* here ranting and railing and > thinking. It is Sunday... perhaps I should go and act in my life with > whatever care and perspective I can muster this day. (Isn't there a game on? > Shouldn't I be going to church? Don't I need something at the mall? I'm > sure I haven't checked all my favorite blogs yet! I need another cup of > coffee, maybe a cigarette, or maybe even something juicier!) > > Carry On, > - Steve > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org