Power
Today we will discuss the concept of power.
Webster's provides us the following definitions:
"The ability one party to influence another party either towards a new direction, or further in an already given direction."
This is pretty much where most of the American psyche and the modern world thinks what power is, and where it comes from. The ability to either force or coerce a group to head in a direction that they would not have without some additional influence. There are some additional caveats with this. There is the old axiom:
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
There are plenty of historical examples of this, so I won't bother listing them. I will mention in passing that there have been some who were offered increasing power, and passed on it. The most notable that leaps to mind was George Washington, who was offered to be King of America not just once, but on 3 separate occasions (and he wisely turned it down all 3 times).
None-the-less, I suspect that most if not all of the suffering on this planet has been the result of individuals or groups of people attempting to increase their power and influence, and I've often wondered if it is even possible for human-kind to survive and thrive in a community without it (and no, communism obviously doesn't count). The only examples I can seem to research are those of ancient cultures.
One of the few examples to survive to this day (but is quickly dying out) is that of the Native Americans. Their definition of power is very, very different, and comes at it from a totally different angle. They view power as dependency, not influence. It is still modeled on the concept of allocation of scarce resources, but the resources needed shift away from the material items, and more towards the people involved. Let me try to illustrate.
To the Native Americans, a company or corporation is COMPLETELY dependent on its customers to exist. If the customers decide they no longer need the company's services, or that they prefer to purchase form another provider, the company has no options. This redefines the nature of who really influences whom, and it requires the company (or individual) to take on 2 things, capacity (the ability to provide a service), and responsibility (the company will always be fully responsible for all of its actions).
Now we hear the words "Corporate Responsibility" all the time in today's workplaces, but how many people equate that to a true meaning? To literally mean this company will be fully responsible for everything it does, and I will fully share in that responsibility? I suspect those companies that can effectively communicate this message to just a majority of its associates would be incredibly successful in any environment (western civilization, eastern philosophies, native american, or even martian). We also rarely hear the words "Individual Responsibility", and even less often, "National Responsibility". (and when we do hear them, they seem to be used more as a tool to change someone's mind than they are being used to speak of universal truths)
The beauty of this concept is that is fully adaptable. Any environment, in any community, and any company of any size could put it to use immediately, from a sole proprietor who has a paper-route, to the CEO of the largest corporation on the planet (this would currently be GE, and they could currently use the help). I suspect that all successful companies or countries do retain as least a version of this in their corporate/national culture. The problem seems to be that this value system seems to erode over time and erode faster as a entity increases in size. Evidence of this can been seen by looking at the top 100 companies every 5 years for the last 40 years or so. I was startled to hear that only 8 companies in the current top 100 were there as little as 15 years ago. Countries seem to last a little longer, but they don't seem to retain their dominance or hegemony for very long when their main focus is just that, retaining their dominance and hegemony.
The same concept of what defines 'power' can also be applied to interpersonal relationships, but this entry is long enough already, so perhaps I'll save that for another day. I'm sure I've pondered about how to ethically influence people to do or think like you do before (or at least how dangerous manipulative people can be). That will probably be an even longer entry than this was though, and I don't usually have that kind of time and energy. So da heck with it. :)
Webster's provides us the following definitions:
- The ability or capacity to perform or act effectively.
- A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude. Often used in the plural: her powers of concentration.
- Strength or force exerted or capable of being exerted; might. See Synonyms at strength.
- The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.
- A person, group, or nation having great influence or control over others: the western powers.
- The might of a nation, political organization, or similar group.
- Forcefulness; effectiveness: a novel of unusual power.
"The ability one party to influence another party either towards a new direction, or further in an already given direction."
This is pretty much where most of the American psyche and the modern world thinks what power is, and where it comes from. The ability to either force or coerce a group to head in a direction that they would not have without some additional influence. There are some additional caveats with this. There is the old axiom:
"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
There are plenty of historical examples of this, so I won't bother listing them. I will mention in passing that there have been some who were offered increasing power, and passed on it. The most notable that leaps to mind was George Washington, who was offered to be King of America not just once, but on 3 separate occasions (and he wisely turned it down all 3 times).
None-the-less, I suspect that most if not all of the suffering on this planet has been the result of individuals or groups of people attempting to increase their power and influence, and I've often wondered if it is even possible for human-kind to survive and thrive in a community without it (and no, communism obviously doesn't count). The only examples I can seem to research are those of ancient cultures.
One of the few examples to survive to this day (but is quickly dying out) is that of the Native Americans. Their definition of power is very, very different, and comes at it from a totally different angle. They view power as dependency, not influence. It is still modeled on the concept of allocation of scarce resources, but the resources needed shift away from the material items, and more towards the people involved. Let me try to illustrate.
To the Native Americans, a company or corporation is COMPLETELY dependent on its customers to exist. If the customers decide they no longer need the company's services, or that they prefer to purchase form another provider, the company has no options. This redefines the nature of who really influences whom, and it requires the company (or individual) to take on 2 things, capacity (the ability to provide a service), and responsibility (the company will always be fully responsible for all of its actions).
Now we hear the words "Corporate Responsibility" all the time in today's workplaces, but how many people equate that to a true meaning? To literally mean this company will be fully responsible for everything it does, and I will fully share in that responsibility? I suspect those companies that can effectively communicate this message to just a majority of its associates would be incredibly successful in any environment (western civilization, eastern philosophies, native american, or even martian). We also rarely hear the words "Individual Responsibility", and even less often, "National Responsibility". (and when we do hear them, they seem to be used more as a tool to change someone's mind than they are being used to speak of universal truths)
The beauty of this concept is that is fully adaptable. Any environment, in any community, and any company of any size could put it to use immediately, from a sole proprietor who has a paper-route, to the CEO of the largest corporation on the planet (this would currently be GE, and they could currently use the help). I suspect that all successful companies or countries do retain as least a version of this in their corporate/national culture. The problem seems to be that this value system seems to erode over time and erode faster as a entity increases in size. Evidence of this can been seen by looking at the top 100 companies every 5 years for the last 40 years or so. I was startled to hear that only 8 companies in the current top 100 were there as little as 15 years ago. Countries seem to last a little longer, but they don't seem to retain their dominance or hegemony for very long when their main focus is just that, retaining their dominance and hegemony.
The same concept of what defines 'power' can also be applied to interpersonal relationships, but this entry is long enough already, so perhaps I'll save that for another day. I'm sure I've pondered about how to ethically influence people to do or think like you do before (or at least how dangerous manipulative people can be). That will probably be an even longer entry than this was though, and I don't usually have that kind of time and energy. So da heck with it. :)
Comments
changed my blogspot, btw...
http://lifeschisms.blogspot.com/
Nevermind, back to being polyhymnia-- I just wasn't feeling very museful anymore.
ME - I have no idea what you could possibly be referring to. This blog entry was prompted by current world affairs and could never have been influenced by personal or professional experiences. If you will excuse me, I have to dislodge my nose from the monitor now.