Vladimyr -
I appreciate your $.02 Canadian as well as the uniquely Russian
perspective you seem to have, especially on the application of political
power/might/will against the individual. I also appreciate your taste
for Irish Stout... I have no idea what it might do for the digestion of
food, but I myself find it aids in the digestion of exotic opinions and
differing ideas. I find, however, that Irish Whiskey works even better
for this purpose. I also appreciate your eloquence here... while I
appreciate those here who are brief and to the point, I often feel
conspicuous in my own elaborations... and it is good to have what I
consider somewhat of a kindred spirit in your willingness and ability to
write large volumes on the topics you choose to engage in.
Power is not actually a corruption since it has deep coupling with basic
biology, it is not a degenerate form of some other behavior but more of an
elaboration or grotesque of something relatively innocuous even beneficial.
I will admit to being deliberately provocative in my claim that "power
is corruption", however I do hold that this is literally true and that
what seem like counter-examples are degenerate cases where the level of
"corruption" is below some threshold. It is also inevitable, I believe
that to be intentional is to be corrupted... any intentional act is an
assertion of control over the world outside of oneself, possibly other
people... what we have been calling power. The mere lifting of a
lever, placing it over a fulcrum and moving something with it is
"corrupt" by my extreme definition. There are unintended consequences
to be had at each turn. The lever can damage the fulcrum or the thing
being moved and the thing being moved can fall or roll somewhere not
quite planned. This does not mean that we should not act, just that we
should not to act with perfect righteousness. The "original sin" of
the bible (and other origin myths) would seem to me to be willfulness.
I have struggled with the various interpretations individuals place on power
and how frequently Power / Control are coupled as ideas. There was an
interesting note I ran into discussing the differences between male and
female interpretations of Control. Most females believe control implies
controlling the behavior of other human beings or animals, Males think more
frequently that control is about understanding and manipulating the world of
things to achieve a goal.
I find this to be a common gender alignment as well. Without skirting
too close to the line of misogyny (I hope), I often find myself
suspecting that some of the greater abuses of power are linked to the
female psyche. This is not to say that women are common overt
perpetrators of the abuse of power (for the sake of control?) but rather
a corollary to "behind every great man is a great woman". I suspect
that women, in their often circumstance of limited direct control/power
are lead to arrange for power/control to be exercised on their behalf.
As a youth, I remember it to be common for the young women to covertly
enjoy the fights started by jealousy among their suitors while all the
while admonishing them for their violence. I fear our more adult
selves, even in the context of national and international politics are
guilty of similar acts of power/control mediated or moderated by fear
and a tendency to use proxies for our power... to incite others (law
making bodies, corporations, law enforcement bodies, etc...) to act on
our behalf in ways that we might never act personally. I believe that
women (and others in relatively limited power/control situations) are
more prone to indirect and proxy means (for what should be obvious reasons).
Oddly both are coupled with fear. A belief is established in the brain that
fear can be assuaged with power or control. The appearance of control in a
situation seems to diminish fear.
Yes, this is of which I speak above... I suspect (again, courting
accusations of gender bias) that women are prone to a qualitatively
different kind of fear than men, leading to qualitatively different ways
of asserting control. I believe that asserting control over others is,
in fact, a specific type of power as opposed to asserting control over
the material world. Men and women are capable and have interests in
both, but there does seem to be a bias there, either explaining or
illuminated by the relative number of women participating in the social
sciences vs men participating in the natural sciences.
This belief results in some extraordinary
absurd behavior. Like striking up a choir to sing God fearing songs during
an aerial bombardment or a sinking ship. We used to call it displacement
behavior in the old days. Like shaving and putting on a tie before facing an
execution squad. Demanding and getting a last cigarette from the
executioner.
My favorite absurdist lyric from a song perhaps is the _They Might Be
Giants_ ditty named appropriately _Whistling in the Dark_.
The current state of affairs is not about who has more power or where is it
being transferred, but rather who has the greatest need to quell the fears
in their hearts.
I think this position has some merit, however, I also think that the
coupling between fear, power, control is circular. When we feel
fearful (as you point out), we seek more (real or apparent) control.
We may seek that by trying to control others behaviour (charisma,
intimidation, persuasion) or we may seek that by trying to control the
physical world around us (patch our roof, dig a well, cut some
firewood). If we seek to control others (assert power) we are likely
to also seek to establish a power-relationship that ensures that we can
control others more easily in the future. We also might seek to control
others en-masse, by establishing persuasive, intimidating or charismatic
rhetoric that supports our control over groups of people. One
technique for establishing this type of control is the stimulation of
the very fear we are trying to assuage in ourselves but in others. By
convincing others they have something to fear (those scary, horrible,
awful immigrants or those *men* or those *women* or this or that
*disease*!) we establish an opportunity to convince them that *we* can
help them reduce that fear (pass a law, sell a product, etc.).
Particularly if they sign over their power to us, if they pledge their
allegiance to us (our party or our gov't or our flag or our manifesto or
our product or our logo). Or similarly, if they invest their capital in
our enterprise, they will feel safer (their economic future will be more
sound).
Look at the situation from the perspective of fear and it stars to fall into
place. Power is a psychological drug addiction that suppresses fear as may
brandy vodka or heroin.
I wish to re-assert my original position that "power is corruption".
Addiction may be part of the mechanism through which this happens, but
for the purpose of my argument I will claim once again, that the instant
one begins to execute power over others, corruption has entered the house.
Our current disturbing socio-political climate has much to do with Mass
media pumping fear scenarios into the global community for the sake of
audience ratings. The consequence is a small profit for share holders and a
global citizenry prepared to die or kill for ridiculous causes.
I think the demonized mass-media are complicit, but they do not act
alone. Those in power seek to maintain and grow that power while those
not in power seek to gain more power and the best leverage for gaining
power over others as you so eloquently explain above, is through the
promise to assuage fear. So what if the very people who promise to
reduce your fear are the very ones who just tweaked it up?
And we are complicit. We feed on our own fears... we love a good
conspiracy theory, we love a good threat from "the other" to feed our
xenophobic instincts.
Fear makes people behave like animals, We each sit upon our own time bombs
of basic fears but in spite of that terminal reality we still can discuss,
argue drink beer and joke a bit with eachother. Perhaps the most notable
value in this dialogue is that we suppress some small amount of fear without
struggling for imaginary power.
I think we are both endorsing Nick's original thesis here... that it is
important, even valuable to argue... even if I split some hairs toward
calling argument strictly a device of rhetoric. The ability to
disagree openly and to use a wide range of methods to persuade each
other is important "practice" for the times when the decisions have to
be made quickly, sometimes unilaterally and often under the pressure of
many differing opinions.
Every significant work of literature concludes that the pursuit of power is
self destructive and that good generals must control that compulsion in
their subordinates. Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Russell have wrote
extensively on the quest for power and its absolutely ruinous consequences.
And I (re) submit that there is not a magic threshold above which power
becomes corruption... I appreciate that in it's most degenerate forms,
power (over others) can seem benign... it *seems to be* that the desire
or quest for power is the problem, not the power itself. Using your
analogy from earlier, that power is addictive... power is the gateway
drug to Power.
- 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
