Choice: The Problem with Power
Power we know in the physical sense is about the ability to work. In a more human sense this doesn't quite apply in the same manner as we live across a span of time and not merely in some abstract mathematical moment of 'here and now'.
In a personal sense we tend to view power as the ability to control. This can mean a number of things as we can think about control in various ways. Choices can completely alter the amount of power we have from moment to moment be this increasing or decreasing our ability to control one item or multiple items.
I would argue that mostly choices dictate how powers shift. The complexity of choices we're surrounded by in human life can both negatively positively impact our course be this immediately or in the future. The art of wielding power is to do so in a truly economic sense. That is, to allot for future requirements yet not to overwhelm ourselves with excess power.
Choice is also necessarily entangled with what we refer to as 'freedom' (and/or 'agency' if the reader prefers). Superficially we tend to frame freedom as something we want more of, yet in reality freedom carries the burden of responsibility. If we have greater and greater freedom to act as we wish then the consequences such actions are ultimately our responsibility as our freedom to make choices increases.
Finally the term power is often regarded as something always applied extrinsically. This isn't the case as we can nurture self control and impact ourselves. Our ability to control ourselves comes through power and power is more often than not better spent in increasing our self-control rather than impinging on others.
It does seem to me that any regard towards the term power in a mass political sense (meaning beyond the individual intent) is an inaccurate use of the term. Such a judgement on such a scale is full errors and misconceptions so any observations made are strains by the individual will pretending to view an objective whole.
Sentiments like 'power corrupts' are just that. They are myopic in both application and reach. To consider power as the sole factor of corruption or corruption as the sole factor of power is to think without making choices, to think without freedom, to imprison ourselves in one thought and ignore our own power to make meaningful and deliberate actions of benefit.
Hopefully that is enough to get a discussion rolling?
In a personal sense we tend to view power as the ability to control. This can mean a number of things as we can think about control in various ways. Choices can completely alter the amount of power we have from moment to moment be this increasing or decreasing our ability to control one item or multiple items.
I would argue that mostly choices dictate how powers shift. The complexity of choices we're surrounded by in human life can both negatively positively impact our course be this immediately or in the future. The art of wielding power is to do so in a truly economic sense. That is, to allot for future requirements yet not to overwhelm ourselves with excess power.
Choice is also necessarily entangled with what we refer to as 'freedom' (and/or 'agency' if the reader prefers). Superficially we tend to frame freedom as something we want more of, yet in reality freedom carries the burden of responsibility. If we have greater and greater freedom to act as we wish then the consequences such actions are ultimately our responsibility as our freedom to make choices increases.
Finally the term power is often regarded as something always applied extrinsically. This isn't the case as we can nurture self control and impact ourselves. Our ability to control ourselves comes through power and power is more often than not better spent in increasing our self-control rather than impinging on others.
It does seem to me that any regard towards the term power in a mass political sense (meaning beyond the individual intent) is an inaccurate use of the term. Such a judgement on such a scale is full errors and misconceptions so any observations made are strains by the individual will pretending to view an objective whole.
Sentiments like 'power corrupts' are just that. They are myopic in both application and reach. To consider power as the sole factor of corruption or corruption as the sole factor of power is to think without making choices, to think without freedom, to imprison ourselves in one thought and ignore our own power to make meaningful and deliberate actions of benefit.
Hopefully that is enough to get a discussion rolling?
Comments (39)
I have no doubt that Lord Acton's quote is mostly accurate - the actual quote is 'power tends to corrupt' (the tends is important and makes the quote). From personal experience of working in diverse areas - media, the arts and health, I think Acton was on the money. The rest of the quote is, of course, "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Absolutely right, which is why democracies have a separation of powers and often a bill of rights to protect people from the abuse of power. Not that this works entirely well.
I'm not really sure what the rest of your OP is getting at. I think it might help to narrow it down a bit
Quoting I like sushi
I can't work out what this means. Sorry.
Power as in physics (physical sense and quantified). In reality the kind of power we talk about in terms of personal control and agency is often misplaced as being a quantity in the same said sense because that is just how language functions.
Less power now may mean more in the future and therefore less power is better if we're looking to increase our power - which I argue against as a dead certainty given that with power comes freedom and responsibility.
If power tends to corrupt then how much of it? My point being there isn't much meaning in the manner people throw the sentiment around (irrespective of the actual original source). People believe power is just what instigates corruption and nothing more. That is why I say it is a superficial view.
Tom, well said. I was going to respond, but yours will suffice.
Yes, okay: Power as the ability to influence others. I will re assess the op
What is this power you’re talking about? Is it the ability to influence others or something entirely different.
People who like to control others will seek out the means to control others. People who care for others will seek out the means to control others too. Here ‘control’/‘influence’/‘manipulate’/‘help’ are hard to distinguish from each other once we strip away the subjective perspectives and goals.
Would a lack of power also be considered ‘corrupt’? Meaning lacking any ability to control or make choices for oneself or others?
Do you see my point of interest now? Also, you’ve brought corruption to the table. Is it reasonable to say you believe power and corruption are inextricably bound. I’m not sure I could agree to this but I wouldn’t dispute that they are all to often parcelled up together (which is part of what I am questioning the validity of).
If we talk about corruption without using the term power what would we say about it. Is what we’d say anything much to do with our ability to control, assess and manage our choices, and does this have a stronger relation to our sense of freedom and responsibility (or sense of authorship) rather than power.
Note: I feel the need to talk about this because I’ve seen various uses of ‘power’ in various different guises of Critical Theory.
Acton was referring to government power, but it's an observation others have made. I don't need to explain to anyone here the uses and abuses of power in government. I think it is a function of power that those who seek it most are frequently ruthless. Chasing power is like chasing wealth - the most inadequate personalities seem to go after it at all costs.
One related theme is the idea of leadership - how power is used to create cultures and behaviours.
Quoting I like sushi
Not sure this makes sense. Corruption is choosing to behave dishonestly in return for personal gain. So no.
Quoting I like sushi
Some people might think they are the same but I don't. I'm not much interested in explorations of 'power over others' in limited roles like a doctor or teacher or cab driver. I am more interested in power in connection with leadership (organisations or governments). But my interest is fairly limited.
Individuals who truly care for others will not seek to control them, will not pressure or persuade. To help someone is to bring someone to insight voluntarily, and allow them to subject your advice to all scrutiny and critical thought, and not to be satisfied with anything less.
I think you need to explain what this power is though. Adding ‘government’ before the term doesn’t explain what it you’re talking about - this is the thrust of what interests me because I believe (and am observing here) something of a reluctance to explicate what power is and why it leads to said ‘corruption’.
Quoting Tom Storm
Dishonesty doesn’t necessarily have be external. I’m pretty sure the dishonesty towards oneself is a greater problem than dishonesty towards other (as it appears to be the seed of the later). Fair enough you said ‘choosing’ which is basically where I am seeing a commonality in what we mean when referring to ‘power’.
Furthermore there is often more to gain from cooperation than from dishonesty. Then there is being dishonest towards what one believes to be a ‘corrupt’ individual in order to do any with perceived ‘corruption’. See my point? I don’t think we can discuss much if you cannot tell me with more depth what ‘corruption’ or ‘power’ is, or you can just state clearly that you believe they are one and the same thing. I wouldn’t agree but at least I could then say something more about that and we could perhaps have an interesting discussion.
Quoting Tom Storm
I don’t think they are the same nor would I expect anyone else to either. My point was perspective dictates the delineation between one and the other.
What is the ‘power’ governments/leaders have then? Are all leaders/governments ‘corrupt’? Not trying ti put words into your mouth, just trying to understand the what and where of the corruption you see in leadership/governments beyond siphoning off some funds here and there and helping out their buddies. I think it is fair to say some leaders/governments do a better job than others, so what are the better ones doing with their power if they are?
I’m happy to go down that route if you want.
Perspective. What you may deem a kind of gentle exposure to critical thought I may view as domineering. “The road to hell …”. I think forcing someone to do something for their own good is something people will, and even should, do in their lives. We will sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong.
From what you say above I could give it the slight twist of saying people who truly care do nothing. Therein lies the problem if ‘power’ - be this knowledge, knowhow or lived experience offered in the form of advice (its persuasion is a subjective/judgement matter).
The Problem With Power
It seems that power and goodness aren't linked in any necessary sense i.e. power doesn't imply goodness and nor does goodness imply power. In other words, the following combinations become possible:
1. Powerful & Good
2. Powerful & Bad
3. Powerless & Good
4. Powerless & Bad
As you can see, 3 necessitates that we seek power i.e. 1 (think God) but the problem is we have to steer clear of 2 (evil dictator) and ensure that 4. It's complicated!
I would still point out that generally 'power' is something that has more modern negative connotations that not due to various political views today and Critical Theory at large. That is why I'm asking what people mean by the term and whether or not they've looked at it in any great depth.
I have started to form a different way of viewing corruption now ... will share once I've mulled it over a bit more.
You seem here to have criticised an approach for being potentially domineering before advocating for being as domineering as possible.
Quoting I like sushi
:chin: Please explain how what seems to be a deeply entrenched fear of power (negative connotation) vis-à-vis good/bad is irrelevant.
I was just making absolutely clear (so I thought) that the lines between items like 'manipulation,' 'persuasion' or 'influence' have a good degree of overlap and therefore people do have differing views as to what constitutes one and no the other.
You used the saying (I assume), “The road to hell [is paved with good intentions]” in reference to a gentler approach that you said could be perceived as domineering. Seems critical to me.
I did but I also mentioned how goodness/benevolence seems to be a must to prevent problems.
Intentionally doing harm is much easier than intentionally doing good. So it seems the power to harm is much less rare than the power to do good.
Note: I don't see any reason to agree with your view of power to do harm being easier as the use of power, by degree, the same amount of power. As I said above I don't see power as either bad or good, nor would I be in any position to dictate what is good or bad for any individual without a better overarching understanding of their given situation.
Then you may have just used that saying inappropriately.
My point is rather simple: The Problem With Power is that it can link up with evil. You know what happens then, right?
The 'problem' as I've posed it is wrapped in its meaning and usage rather than having anything to do with good or bad. I was arguing that to define 'power' based mostly (if not purely in some cases) on 'evil' or whatever is a little myopic and prevents us from understanding what power is beyond a mere item for declaring something as possessing differing levels of corruption.
Correct me if you think I'm wrong but I do see the term 'power' as meaning a whole lot more than this and it has drawn the attention of philosophers like Schopenhauer and Neitzsche.
The will to power isn't really about how to be evil or bad is it. I was trying to relate power to choice and freedom and what, underneath all the 'politicking,' 'power' is build on.
I find the term 'power corrupts' to be a little trite. It sounds dismissive. Tom Storm's post showed me that this wasn't just in my imagination as I've seen such remarks before put forward as the be all and end all of any discussion about 'power'.
Power has many definitions. I'm not interested in all variations. I was feeding back a few thoughts about leadership and those in an elevated position of authority who might abuse that status. I am not saying that this is always the case. Remember Lord Acton's quote - I was at pains to reinstate the word "may".
Quoting I like sushi
Can you explain this with an example? I can't make out the point.
Quoting I like sushi
No.
The question isn't defining power, it is trying to determine where the line is between stewardship and authoritarianism and how to prevent the former from becoming the latter.
Power can be described as having control, a mandate, influence, authority and autonomy. It can come in absolute forms or it can be tempered by checks and balances.
Thomas Jefferson was less optimistic than Acton.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Quoting Tom Storm
People are dishonest with themselves all the time. This dishonesty is for personal gain - in the form of avoidance. Long term, not short term, this is often detrimental. This is corruption as you’ve framed it and I’m saying this is due to a lack of power.
So having too much or too little power causes poor judgement to the detriment of self/others.
Quoting Tom Storm
So power can prevent corruption. Which basically leads straight to the point that ‘power’ isn’t defined by corruption, yet it is a perpetual habit for people to relate power to corruption.
How power is used may or may not cause corruption. Absolute power doesn’t exist, and higher degrees of power don’t necessitate corruption. Status is a better contender for corruption because those overly concerned with the opinion of the masses will reduce themselves to gain favour/appeal/attention.
What do you think of the will to power and the different ways in which Schopenhauer and Nietzsche put this forward? Or is that not of any immediate interest to you?
Because you're mixing narratives. Power and corruption are both social and political terms. Why mix it with the point you're trying to make in the first place if it isn't what you mean? Don't contrast two ideas within the same context. It doesn't sound right.
Remember too that Lord Acton went on to say that 'great men are almost always bad men' another angle to this. I am convinced that many people who chase and attain power are psychologically damaged and ruthless individuals. So you could also say that people corrupt power. Either way, it doesn't make any difference to the end result.
Quoting I like sushi
Can you provide an example so we can see this in action? I'm still unclear.
Quoting I like sushi
Contestable claims here. Can you demonstrate that absolute power doesn't exist? I think the idea here is that there is 'maximal power' which surely does exist. I would say Stalin had this and so too do the Taliban right now. Power over who gets to live and die and what people can do and wear is as close to absolute power as humans can get. Perhaps North Korean leadership has more power than this - they even control people's thoughts.
Why are you interested in this subject - what thesis are you testing out? Is there more you can add?
Nietzsche doesn't resonate with me greatly but I enjoy some of his aphorisms. It's all just a little grandiose and camp for me. I was never really clear if N intended der Wille zur Macht as an almost foundational principle behind all of nature, or as a psychological insight about human behavior. Schopenhauer is more interesting and I have read some essays (the prose is nicer) but I am not a philosopher so I don't read much philosophy.
I like the sound of that. Power gets a bad rap not because it's in and of itself bad but because it attracts the wrong kinda crowd. One could say that the fault lies in us, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say human nature is to blame. I suppose our immediate reaction - fear, dislike - to it has a lot to do with the rather painful history we've had with tyrants, totalitarianism, and so on. Once bitten, twice shy.
Quoting I like sushi
Then you're not doing it right. If choice and freedom are your primary concern, you should've steered clear of power. It complicates the issue because power and freedom haven't always been the best of buddies if you know what I mean.
I think I'm well justified because the go to response is generally power = bad and little more thought is put into it, what it means or how we could come to understand human action and intent by investigating this.
Quoting Tom Storm
If that isn't clear an example would only compound the problem because you'd seek out a hole in any particular example I would pose that has nothing to do with the thrust of the point.
Let me put it like this. When we act in a certain way and the outcome is deemed 'bad' we steer away from or deny agency, whereas when the outcome is deemed 'good' we lean hard into claiming agency for the action. This is a basic psychology example of how humans (ALL humans) react to perceived outcomes of perceived actions. We shield ourselves from the reality of the situation and claim responsibility for an action depending on the outcome compared to our predicted outcome.
This happens to everyone everyday to some degree or another. It is simply the way we are. The 'personal gain' is more often about how people feel about their status around others, or it is just a means to avoid shame or something like that (gain and/or avoidance of negativity).
Quoting Tom Storm
I think I mentioned before about the extension of power through time? Immediate power in the now is a physical thing (I need x amount of power to run my computer). In the human sphere, the power of individuals, it is not parceled up in moments.
Either way Stalin didn't really have the power to kill more than a handful of people here and there. I could pick up a knife and kill anyone quite easily. I have the power to take away a lot of lives if I so wished. Do you think Stalin set out to kill people? Is killing someone the same as gaining more control over your life. In some circumstances killing someone could lead to a better set of choices for the future, I won't deny that. I would deny that having the ability to kill is anything like having power.
Again, I see this habit of equating power with negativity (authoritarian rule and dictatorships). I know this is a common perception today and I'm flat out saying it is quite myopic and a very sad thing to see.
Quoting TheMadFool
Maybe I am assuming too much about how people are reading what I've said (not the first time!). The thing is they are the best of buddies as far as I can tell. Or rather 'choice' above 'freedom' (the later being something people pine for in an absolute sense even though they REALLY don't want it). It is perhaps the desire for 'freedom' that is more bound up in corruption than power itself. Power, as I'm looking at it, is more about choice (hence the OP title).
I should probably distinguish between 'freedom' and 'choice' again. Choice is more or less recognition of opportunity to make changes (the ability to do so is tied into this too as 'ability' in this case means having a fuller recognition of the choices rather than a superficial wishful thinking kind of 'choice'). Freedom is something we wouldn't really want in an unlimited capacity as it would mean ALL consequences of our actions would lie at our feet, we'd be to blame for what happens to ourselves and to a large degree what happens to those around us too. Freedom necessitates taking Responsibility, and our capacity for such Freedom is ideally limited by our 'power' (ie. understanding and appreciation of choices therein).
This is the thought I've been mulling over since yesterday regarding having a different look at 'corruption'. Corruption, in this thought, being the attainment of Freedom at all costs and shirking the Responsibility that necessarily comes with it. That makes more sense than viewing 'corruption' as simply wishing/wanting to attain more and more 'power'.
Indeed, good people are those who follow rules/laws i.e. they willingly, with little resistance, give up (some of) their freedom for the greater good. Remember though that people only sacrifice their liberty to the extent it's fair and reasonable. Once one's autonomy is at risk, one will naturally begin to resist the oppressive force at play viz. power.
It appears that, like on many occasions, the conclusion is to avoid extremes - strike a balance between complete freedom & total power (the golden mean, the middle path). By the way, doesn't it look as thought complete freedom is total power?
I agree. Morality is about the use of power. The concept of mercy implies a kind of counter power: the power of the innocent to elicit pity and compassion.
There are people who seek medical attention specifically to gain narcotics. They try to access this 'power of the innocent suffering person' by the way they behave. Some healthcare workers become annoyed, but it can also bring about the opposite: pity for those who've been driven to that life by addiction. So it can be convoluted.
To become immune to pity and compassion is a dangerous road morally speaking. This sometimes happens under an umbrella of self righteousness which means it's really driven by rage.
Rage is a sign of victimization, though. It's by way of bitterness and rage that the victim takes her stand among the powerful evil-doers who create more victims who are destined to do the same.
This cycle of violence was noted by the Jews who originally created Christianity. The Christian message was about letting go of rage. Step out of the cycle and gain a different kind of freedom.