I’m in Florida, visiting my parents on the Gulf Coast. When the plane landed in Dallas/Fort Worth, for the stopover, and again in Fort Myers, the ground below looked, well, scratchy. In contrast to the loamy and verdant patch of land I call home, the earth looked threadbare, like an old quilt that had seen better days. And it’s not just the geographical landscape in Portland that’s different. There’s a cultural landscape in Portland, in Multnomah County, Oregon that is markedly different from many parts of the country.
These thoughts bring me back to the question of power. Because in that luxuriant landscape of Multnomah County, it’s easy to get myopic, to think about the problems of power and leadership in more benign terms. My goal here is to look at how we use power, how and why we use it poorly, and how we can use it well. And yet, the question nags me, is it that simple? What about blatantly abusive, even evil uses of power? Can we really learn how to use power like we learn how to ride a bike, or does power truly have a corrupting influence? I’m not sure it does. Maybe the already corrupted tend to seek power. Because not everyone in a high rank position abuses power. Which lends weight to the argument, to use gun advocates’ phrase, that it’s not power that abuses, but the person. Or perhaps it’s a problem of scale, that because of their high profile, leaders’ egregious acts of abuse are more visible.
So, over the next few months I’ll be looking at the more difficult sides to power, whether there really are certain factors related to high rank that alter behavior, or even personality. One of the difficulties in tackling this question is that it’s often answered by those who have been hurt by power, so we seldom hear the story from both sides. For this reason, I like to consider power a problem of scale – even in a small way, if we have misused our power, we can shed light on this question: how if it all has power itself contributed to its abusive use?
Two thoughts on power, or lack of power:
1) The rank associated with more static kinds of power (e.g. economic / class / race privilege) also induces a kind of myopia. The view from the center of a crowded circle is limited – you see the nearest part of the crowd, but mostly you see yourself – while the view from the edge – the viewpoint of the marginalized – takes in a lot more. Those with less power have to be aware of more just to survive, and even the most well-meaning person of privilege struggles to achieve a more expanded, inclusive view.
2) I remember being so heartened, Julie, by your explanation many years ago of the concept of temporary rank. In any encounter, no matter the apparent disparity in power held by the participants, there are opportunities to acquire and wield temporary influence, rank, and power for any participant. (For example, an eloquent speaker can hold the floor even in a group of apparently more powerful people.) That knowledge changed my world view into a more optimistic and self-confident one. (Knowledge is power !)
Thanks, Jude
Hi Jude,
yes, situational or contextual rank is a really useful way to understand and also work with disparity in power. It’s something I’ve learned from Arny Mindell and his different levels of rank (see Sitting in the Fire). I like that you frame it as knowledge is power, which acknowledges there are different knowledges, and thus different ways to wield power. I look forward to writing more about this soon.
Julie
Pingback: Public Life, Private Selves « A User’s Guide to Power
Pingback: » Public Life, Private Selves