Monday, February 2, 2009
Power: A Means & An End
The
question posed for this week is "What
is the nature of Social Power?"; however,
before I get into the answer I want to revisit some of my thoughts from
last week (briefly). First of all, while the Early Marx discussed in
last week's post was fairly tautological and often failed to drive home
a point, the 'economist' Marx as seen in Das
Kapital, while still
not one to conserve words, was very rational in his thought process and
made clear points. Along with that, some of my thoughts about modern
day alienation of the mind were addressed in some of these 'middle
period' Marx works as well. With that said, Marx did seem to have a
somewhat idyllic view of what life would be like in a nation where the
populous no longer focuses on manufacture/industry work and shifts to
the mental and creative labors--much as the modern Western states have
done (although, rather than doing it through furthering automation, we
did it by shifting industrial operations to other nations where we can
exploit workers outside of our borders and thus make a feeble attempt
to hide the exploitation from the public eye). Now instead of 'wage
labor' we have 'salary labor' and instead of being forced by profiteers
to give up our leisure time to produce tangible objects that we do not
own, we voluntarily work at home after 'clocking out' to get reports
and other intangible 'products of the mind' created for others. Marx
seemed to view the intellectual labors as ones where the workers have
more ownership of the product, and it's true that workers have more
freedom to personalize their labor and even a degree (or illusion) of
flexibility as to when to work on the 'products of the mind', but I
believe that ultimately this is a false consciousness (Tucker
1978:284-285). In fact, Marx believed that capitalism would be desitned
to end with the end of wage labor (Tucker 1978:215). However, my ideas
are still not fully baked on this topic, so I will move on to the
actual question of this week.
As somebody who has sought power in various forms for various reasons from the age of 5 (maybe 7) to the present, I still have trouble clinching down on a single answer to the question of the nature of social power. Sometimes power has simply been a personal thing, to be in control of myself and reject perceived control structures--a simple rejection of authority to exert my indpendence and taking actions to prove that I can survive without those authorities. At other times, I have gained power within an institution such as my time on various university boards and student organizations as an undergraduate that allowed me to make changes effecting individuals other than myself (it helped that my executive boards for the student organizations I ran were handpicked by me--including handpicking one member who I knew would disagree with most of my ideas). Since those days, however, I have learned that true independence is undesirable--while relying on authorities is distasteful, I have found that it is important to rely on other people for various specializations. So while one can have the 'power of independence', it is my belief that independence as a form is social power is either a dead end or an illusion (or false conscience, if you will). Sometimes in those more institutional roles, I've had varying degrees of power where I have had agenda items given to me by administrators or have had to consider the opinions of my constituents (although in the debate of increasing the general education requirements at my undergraduate institution, I went against what I assumed my constituent desires would be by voting and speaking in favor of the changes). With power granted by an institution, there are clear limits and rules bound by governing documents, those with more power than oneself, and sometimes "the people" (although, generally speaking, "the people" only have the illusion of power and their wishes are only followed if there is fear of a dissolution of the structure).
So far these anecdotes have not really gotten at the nature of social power, here I'm defining nature to mean the 'essentials'. The title to this post gives a hint, but it is deceptive as well. In life, I have found that in order to acquire power one needs power of one form or another--whether it is Obama's oratorical power, Caesar's strategic power (the power of his family connections didn't hurt either), etc. It is the end part that is deceptive though because while I believe that power can be an end in itself, I also believe power can have other ends. Sometimes individuals desire and obtain power for the purpose of maintaining the "old guard" with its structure, ways, and privileges for the then current elite (e.g. the Roman Senate in the late Republic, the Bush administration, etc.) Conversely, there are those who seek power (or at least claim to--we can't read their minds) for the purpose of change and destrcution of the "old guard" (e.g. Gorbachev, although I don't believe him; the Gracchi, Caesar, although he likely had additional motivators; and Obama, although it is too early to tell). It should be noted that when Napoleon first rose to power it was on populist message of change and destruction of the European monarchies (Beethoven originally dedicated a symphony to Napoleon for this reason) and while change did come, Napoleon's motives were clearly not the ones he claimed as he crowned himself emperor and proceeded to try to take the world by force (Beethoven changed his mind about dedicating the symphony to Napoleon on this news). Thus, there is considerable skepticism about the true motivations for those who seek power for the sake of change (incidentally, I voted for, donated to, and even did some door knocking for Obama's campaing--but then my favorite US President is FDR whom I consider to be the United State's most successful dictator).
So I return to the quesiton for a third and final time: what is the nature of social power? Simply put, the nature of social power is to force one's own ideas on to others--whether those ideas are about preserving a structure and "way of life" or whether those ideas are changing the way people view the world. Social power is as intangible as knowledge and information and as concrete as an individual at the top of an organization's 'pyramid of power'. It is as basic as a spouse influencing their spouse to try out a new restaurant or as complex as leading a nation in a time of war. One can obtain power over oneself, convince a small band, or subjugate nations--the more power one seeks, the more power one needs to obtain that end. While ideas have social power, if a person does not have the power of written or spoken word then the person can only obtain a limited set of power with that idea (although if one of the people he convinces to follow him and his idea has the power of spoken or written word then the powers can be combined to create more power, but then it is shared power).
To quickly sum up this, admittedly meandering, post: power begets power but the end goal of power is to force others to accept one's vision (which can be interpreted as power as well, but I am separating the two here--where power is the process to get what one wants and when one already has it that is no longer power, per se, since at that point it is just 'accepted' and one doesn't have to make other's agree with an idea or force it on to another person). Although, I will freely admit that I have sought power for the sake of power, but to me information is power and the more I can know then the more I understand how things work and can find ways to subvert the system or use the current system to achieve my goals, but then this does not always fit well with my ethical imperative that I can do whatever I want as long as I harm nobody when I know the truth is that you cannot do anything without harming somebody else in one way or another. So it's nice to have an illusion that power goes beyond an end to itself, at least. Marx saw knowledge as a power that could be objectified through the creation of intellectual products and science (Tucker 1978:285). To me knowledge is the ultimate power as it allows one to understand the whole and all of the individual pieces, knowing which ones can be subverted and which ones can be used to reach a certain point. Knowledge also allows one to understand that power gained by certain means, such as those granted by an institution, often comes with constraints that cannot be broken without severing the source of power--thus an individual that rises to power granted by an institution may find that while they are able to change the institution to a degree they also end up serving the interests of the institution and thus reinforce it. Similarly, while one can gain individual freedom through rebellion against authority may gain the power to be dependent from that authority, possibly all authorities, but ultimately they must depend on somebody for some things. The way power is acquired and the goals for acquiring power often determine if its ends will be for nefarious purposes or for ideological reasons and changes that might be necessary.
*Update 9 Feb 2009*
I was watching M*A*S*H this evening and the following line was said by Charles Winchester after he finds out Hawkeye and BJ have gotten a bathtub "Your middle-class sense of decency and fair play will overcome the malice you now bear me, and soon I shall be luxuriating in that canvas Xanadu. And if that craps out, I'll just bribe you silly." When that didn't prove to have results, Winchester threatened blackmail (telling the camp) and got the access to it he wanted. Social power at work. Continuing on the 'popular culture' kick, I also realized a discussion of social power could not be complete without mentioning "A Little Priest" from Sweeney Todd (lyrics), some of the better nuggets include:
As somebody who has sought power in various forms for various reasons from the age of 5 (maybe 7) to the present, I still have trouble clinching down on a single answer to the question of the nature of social power. Sometimes power has simply been a personal thing, to be in control of myself and reject perceived control structures--a simple rejection of authority to exert my indpendence and taking actions to prove that I can survive without those authorities. At other times, I have gained power within an institution such as my time on various university boards and student organizations as an undergraduate that allowed me to make changes effecting individuals other than myself (it helped that my executive boards for the student organizations I ran were handpicked by me--including handpicking one member who I knew would disagree with most of my ideas). Since those days, however, I have learned that true independence is undesirable--while relying on authorities is distasteful, I have found that it is important to rely on other people for various specializations. So while one can have the 'power of independence', it is my belief that independence as a form is social power is either a dead end or an illusion (or false conscience, if you will). Sometimes in those more institutional roles, I've had varying degrees of power where I have had agenda items given to me by administrators or have had to consider the opinions of my constituents (although in the debate of increasing the general education requirements at my undergraduate institution, I went against what I assumed my constituent desires would be by voting and speaking in favor of the changes). With power granted by an institution, there are clear limits and rules bound by governing documents, those with more power than oneself, and sometimes "the people" (although, generally speaking, "the people" only have the illusion of power and their wishes are only followed if there is fear of a dissolution of the structure).
So far these anecdotes have not really gotten at the nature of social power, here I'm defining nature to mean the 'essentials'. The title to this post gives a hint, but it is deceptive as well. In life, I have found that in order to acquire power one needs power of one form or another--whether it is Obama's oratorical power, Caesar's strategic power (the power of his family connections didn't hurt either), etc. It is the end part that is deceptive though because while I believe that power can be an end in itself, I also believe power can have other ends. Sometimes individuals desire and obtain power for the purpose of maintaining the "old guard" with its structure, ways, and privileges for the then current elite (e.g. the Roman Senate in the late Republic, the Bush administration, etc.) Conversely, there are those who seek power (or at least claim to--we can't read their minds) for the purpose of change and destrcution of the "old guard" (e.g. Gorbachev, although I don't believe him; the Gracchi, Caesar, although he likely had additional motivators; and Obama, although it is too early to tell). It should be noted that when Napoleon first rose to power it was on populist message of change and destruction of the European monarchies (Beethoven originally dedicated a symphony to Napoleon for this reason) and while change did come, Napoleon's motives were clearly not the ones he claimed as he crowned himself emperor and proceeded to try to take the world by force (Beethoven changed his mind about dedicating the symphony to Napoleon on this news). Thus, there is considerable skepticism about the true motivations for those who seek power for the sake of change (incidentally, I voted for, donated to, and even did some door knocking for Obama's campaing--but then my favorite US President is FDR whom I consider to be the United State's most successful dictator).
So I return to the quesiton for a third and final time: what is the nature of social power? Simply put, the nature of social power is to force one's own ideas on to others--whether those ideas are about preserving a structure and "way of life" or whether those ideas are changing the way people view the world. Social power is as intangible as knowledge and information and as concrete as an individual at the top of an organization's 'pyramid of power'. It is as basic as a spouse influencing their spouse to try out a new restaurant or as complex as leading a nation in a time of war. One can obtain power over oneself, convince a small band, or subjugate nations--the more power one seeks, the more power one needs to obtain that end. While ideas have social power, if a person does not have the power of written or spoken word then the person can only obtain a limited set of power with that idea (although if one of the people he convinces to follow him and his idea has the power of spoken or written word then the powers can be combined to create more power, but then it is shared power).
To quickly sum up this, admittedly meandering, post: power begets power but the end goal of power is to force others to accept one's vision (which can be interpreted as power as well, but I am separating the two here--where power is the process to get what one wants and when one already has it that is no longer power, per se, since at that point it is just 'accepted' and one doesn't have to make other's agree with an idea or force it on to another person). Although, I will freely admit that I have sought power for the sake of power, but to me information is power and the more I can know then the more I understand how things work and can find ways to subvert the system or use the current system to achieve my goals, but then this does not always fit well with my ethical imperative that I can do whatever I want as long as I harm nobody when I know the truth is that you cannot do anything without harming somebody else in one way or another. So it's nice to have an illusion that power goes beyond an end to itself, at least. Marx saw knowledge as a power that could be objectified through the creation of intellectual products and science (Tucker 1978:285). To me knowledge is the ultimate power as it allows one to understand the whole and all of the individual pieces, knowing which ones can be subverted and which ones can be used to reach a certain point. Knowledge also allows one to understand that power gained by certain means, such as those granted by an institution, often comes with constraints that cannot be broken without severing the source of power--thus an individual that rises to power granted by an institution may find that while they are able to change the institution to a degree they also end up serving the interests of the institution and thus reinforce it. Similarly, while one can gain individual freedom through rebellion against authority may gain the power to be dependent from that authority, possibly all authorities, but ultimately they must depend on somebody for some things. The way power is acquired and the goals for acquiring power often determine if its ends will be for nefarious purposes or for ideological reasons and changes that might be necessary.
*Update 9 Feb 2009*
I was watching M*A*S*H this evening and the following line was said by Charles Winchester after he finds out Hawkeye and BJ have gotten a bathtub "Your middle-class sense of decency and fair play will overcome the malice you now bear me, and soon I shall be luxuriating in that canvas Xanadu. And if that craps out, I'll just bribe you silly." When that didn't prove to have results, Winchester threatened blackmail (telling the camp) and got the access to it he wanted. Social power at work. Continuing on the 'popular culture' kick, I also realized a discussion of social power could not be complete without mentioning "A Little Priest" from Sweeney Todd (lyrics), some of the better nuggets include:
Sweeney Todd: The history of the world, my love--
Mrs. Lovett: Save a lot of graves
Do a lot of relatives favours
Sweeney Todd: --Is those below serving those up above
andSweeney Todd: For what’s the sound of the world out there?
[...]
Sweeney Todd: It’s man devouring man, my dear
The entire story of Sweeney Todd is made possible by an abuse of social power
as illustrated by these quotes. Both of these examples of social power
demonstrate 'evil' uses of it.
Another form of social power that I was recently reminded of is one's ability to
assert oneself onto another, leave an impression. This is a particularly useful
form of social power when interviewing for a job (or in this case a prospective
grad student). This is social power on the micro level, where personal favors
(as mentioned in the Sweeney Todd lyrics) also falls but these micro level social
powers are often needed to rise to higher levels of social power.
posted by Mike Oren # 9:44 AM
Post a Comment