Power

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

What are your thoughts on power, as it relates to the human condition?

Nietszche, as I understand him, thought that power is pretty much 'it' -- all human actions and interactions can be explained as attempts to exert control over other people or the external world in general. I happen to think this is terribly simplistic, as are most statements that start with 'Everything boils down to ___'. But the nugget of wisdom I see in considering this point of view, is that is makes one warier of other people who have a hidden agenda of feeling powerful at your expense. No, everything isn't power. But power and the desire for it does motivate a lot of people a lot of the time, and it's important, especially for someone who chooses not to play that game, to acknowledge this.

11 years ago, I stumbled upon nerve.com, and decided that it would be a good idea to use their personals section to find a date. The site, which served a clientele that's not exactly leather and chains but decidedly edgier than me, had a long list of things people could select as turn-ons. I noticed that 'power' was one that virtually every woman seeking a man selected. I made a point to deselect this item, and remember being kind of vexed that I couldn't find a chick there who found this equally as unsexy. For the longest time I've wondered, is this just indicative of the crowd that nerve.com serves, or is there an element of dominance, i.e. a power differential, in most sexual attractions between people? My wife and I are both androgynous people who interact like pals, but manage to be very sexually compatible. I knew I'd found a keeper when she was not only devoid of sarcasm, but also not looking to either dominate me or be dominated by me. How common is this, in your experience?

I think all people have the potential to be powerful in some way or another, but in the end, we're all profoundly weak. Power is always limited and usually fleeting, no matter what form it takes. Paradoxically, I think that acknowledging this humbling fact is one of the most empowering things anyone can do.

 

[B9]

I think that the seeking of power is a (ha ha) powerful drive in humans, it takes a special person to really abstain from that particular impulse, the levels of awareness to acheive this I believe are almost superhuman. Obviously there's degrees of power, some people are power crazy most are satisfied with enough to procreate & feel relatively comfortable.
Biologically it's almost the be all & end all.
So MDAO with your partner you never ever feel the impulse to be domineering - I do - it's completely unrealistic :D but hey a little comforting delusion doesn't hurt right?

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ No, it really doesn't enter into our relationship much. I don't begrudge anyone else this element in their relationship. I even know people who are into S&M, and I have absolutely nothing against it -- it's consenting activity between adults. I only have a problem with people (in romantic relationships or any other sort of relationship), who trap unwilling people into positions of submission. After all, as the fetish scene and personals sites like nerve.com show, there are plenty of people out there willing to be dominated. It's kind of how I don't have any problem with people who box, but plenty of problem with people who bully and beat up unwilling victims for fun.

Power relationships aren't inherently bad. Predation is.

 

[B9]

^ I'd wager that many of those people are completely unconscious of the conditioning which leads them to be this way. You may well object ( and fwiw I'd agree with you) but it doesn't solve the issue at all. It's not uncommon for power struggles to take place in all sorts of unlikely arenas & females can be equally as predatory as males.
This is one area in which I believe psychedelics can really excel, to show the person the naked truth - I know I've seen it myself & I was shocked by it.

DMTruth

 

[sssssssssss]

Ive always diverted from exerting power and hate being controlled, manipulated or anything that has to do with limiting myself. I also dont have an eager sex drive. Within my group of friends i always share what i have weather it be money, alcohol, house, food, whatever if i feel like they need it, and dont expect anything in return except for their gratitude. Usually they recognize it an repay it back in some form or another without acknowleging it. If i feel like im being taken advantage though, i wont be heitent to let them know.

Its almost a bad quality to pose when im around people driven by power because i can be niaive, and too trusting. I sometimes have things stolen from me, and am vulnerable to be taken advantage of. But when i realize it, i dont forget.

But im not like this to everyone, just people who appreciate it, which is usually the people i surround myself with. I still enjoy playing sports, and dominating in bed... its more of a "i trust you so i dont care" kind of attitude.

 

[malakaix]

I knew I'd found a keeper when she was not only devoid of sarcasm, but also not looking to either dominate me or be dominated by me. How common is this, in your experience?

I hope one day i find someone similar.

I feel some people enjoy the power-play aspects of relationships, which isn't bad.. it's simply where there at. I honestly feel to 'tired' for those types of dynamics; I've always found the most joy in just sharing 'being' with another person..

The people who dominate or enjoy been dominated seem to have high expectations of their partner in their relationships, whereas those that don't, expect little to nothing of their partner.. there presence alone is enough.

Maybe im to lazy to participate in the power-struggle that seems to unfold in social hierarchy's and relationships, but it just seems so pointless.. so much of your energy is been focused on maintaining power at all costs, when it could be used in a more positive manner, allowing yourself to connect with others on a deeper level.

 

[ebola?]

There are so many different ways to conceptualize power:

Marx: to dominate (ie, command the local conditions of what the laborer does per the capitalist's specifications) and exploit (ie, claim what another individual produces), through class-relations.

However, for Marx, the capitalist class also exerts domination via unequal access to the means of the production and distribution of ideas (rarely in a willful or conspiratorial way, and never remotely close to fully)...it is rather a side-effect of how one presents societal and 'classed' common sense.

I like Gramsci's elaboration on this issue, casting hegemony (ie, status-quo ideology) as the ability to secure complicity from those dominated through material and ideological means.

With Gramsci and Marx, we have a conception of power that includes manipulating what people desire, not just the rules of the game they play.


Weber: the ability to realize one's will socially against opposition (the main mechanism being the institutional creation of obedient staff and congealment of administered masses. Such accords varying types of legitimacy to such institutions and those who fit into them, be they commanders or commanded).

Essentially, power for Weber is the ability to elicit obedience.

Foucualt: as those exercising power observe, assess, and correct those people who are under this surveillance, particular types individuals under observation and controlled intervention arise, however also interpelating those exercising power. Particular regimes of power-knowledge shape the actions, relations, identities, and visible qualities of all involved; it is from the shape of the institution and the discourse to which it links that the individuals, super-ordinate and subordinate, arise.
Thus, power is diffuse, propagating discursive regimes constructing relations in their images...

Furthermore, the subject comes to internalize this process, entailing that the individual agent, as we know him or her, arises as he or she surveills and corrects him or her self...constructing even desire itself.

Bourdieu: social interactions are often a competitive game of presentations of self, rooted in class and 'status' based experiences, which conditionins resources one may deploy in this game but also one's disposition to make certain presentations. An overall game presents particular rules (I can't be more detailed for now. ), and institutions anchor the 'spaces' of these games.

Here (like with Marx and Gramsci), power is not just winning the competition but rather also includes attempts to manipulate the rules of the game. Certain classes have far better chances to do so.

But all this (except for Marx) excludes individualist conceptions of power...namely the ability to realize one's latent potentialities via will transformation of the world, natural and social (ie, positive freedom).

ebola

 

[Dedbeet]

Power/control is ultimately only a sense of power/control -- not the actual article.

The author of this message is one (or at best two) missed heartbeats away from dropping dead on the spot.

Not to mention, people who are dominated are in some sense willing to be dominated, if only via their own attachments and willingness to "give the other power" in exchange for getting something back.

 

[MrM]

I think people overestimate the value of power over others and underestimate the value of power over themselves.

 

[Jamshyd]

For all intents and purposes, you can consider me as being "into S&M" (well, actually more the "BD" half of "SMBD"). For me, "good sex" is that which involves me being overpowered. That said, I define "power" here as being the skill to control the other's pleasure AND pain equally, which seems to necessarily involve a high level of empathy and understanding.

Outside of the bedroom, however, I see all pursuit of power as being pointless (however I recognize that it - the pursuit of power, not power itself - appears to be one of the main driving fources behind humanity - in fact, maybe even second only to Love). I also pity those who appear to be acting for the sake of power, and nothing else. And while I consider this attitude as being healthy, I will always have a tiny bit of doubt: that I may in fact be acting out of power-hunger in ways of which I am not (yet) aware.

I do not know much of Nietzche's thoughts, but Ebola mentions Foucault - it is interesting that I've been aware of Foucault and his ideas for many years now, yet only in the last few months have I seem to have began to REALLY understand what he is talking about - incidentally after my first "true" S&M experience. I find it not surprising at all that Foucault himself was into S&M...

 

[Pythagoras]

^^

Foucqualt into S&M? Discuss?


Now there is a way to pique peoples interest in philosophy!!

 

[Dedbeet]

I think people overestimate the value of power over others and underestimate the value of power over themselves.

Power over oneself could be called 'self-knowledge', from here -- knowing how you tick. The only way to 'gain power over oneself' is to surrender those aspects that turns you into a sellout: mainly the search for security, safety, familiarity, power, control, recognition, that sort of stuff.

 

[yougene]

That said, I define "power" here as being the skill to control the other's pleasure AND pain equally, which seems to necessarily involve a high level of empathy and understanding.

Which can also be framed as penetration of the heart, mind, and spirit.

Outside of the bedroom, however, I see all pursuit of power as being pointless (however I recognize that it - the pursuit of power, not power itself - appears to be one of the main driving fources behind humanity - in fact, maybe even second only to Love).

If we take the pursuit of power as an instance of Eros than power isn't separate to Love but an instance of it.

But that brings up another point. Is Agape(the feminine/passive force) not powerful? It may have been Eros that brought the people of India together under Ghandi. But it was Agape/compassion of British subjects that made domination unsustainable.

The polarized interaction of these two abstract forces is Power/Love. Top-down envelopment juxtaposed with bottom-up penetration.

 

[JJ-180]

I know I've said this before, but the whole point of "Power" is not how to get it, but how to avoid it.

 

[skillz~4~thrillz]

power is just as broad a term as philosophy or spirituality. we all see power as different things. some see money or status. some see knowledge. i see control as power. not control over others but over myself,my actions and reactions.although i have no control over my emotions,i can control how i let them surface or how i express them when they do. for me power is the ability to keep composure even in the face of an adversary's blow.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ I think that's a good example of what I meant when I said we all have the potential to be powerful.

 

[slimvictor]

Power over oneself could be called 'self-knowledge', from here -- knowing how you tick. The only way to 'gain power over oneself' is to surrender those aspects that turns you into a sellout: mainly the search for security, safety, familiarity, power, control, recognition, that sort of stuff.

QFT
Though, I would have worded it differently.
"power over" does not equal "power". In fact, "power over" is not a real kind of power, if you ask me.
That was why I was a little surprised, MDAO, to see your discussion of relative power = hierarchy (lack thereof) with your SO brought up as if it were a natural flow from the initial question.

Power, to me, is just what Dedbeet described: the confidence that, no matter what happens, you will survive. (Obviously ultimately untrue, at least if you conceive of "you" narrowly, but nonetheless the only path to true power, IMHO). But this is just one way of conceiving of power. In addition:

Open-mindedness is power.
Truth is power, and the ability to tell the truth (especially when a lie would serve you) is power.
Knowledge is power.
Experience is power.
Positivity is power.
Focus/attention is power.
etc.

 

[vegan]

tells me that the ones seeking power don't have enough will power to be content with their lives without this excuse of a compensation

 

[panic in paradise]

Foucualt seems to be where my thoughts are.

is the power not with the one who listens?
the ability to listen, the one who waits, who may then have the next word/action built upon insight of their presented situation.



the sleeper
the Hierophant
the Lion, nor the Great White Shark dare announce their presence. no they stalk, attune, align and then -
you were never the wiser - for you never even heard it coming.

 

[thujone]

I think all people have the potential to be powerful in some way or another, but in the end, we're all profoundly weak. Power is always limited and usually fleeting, no matter what form it takes. Paradoxically, I think that acknowledging this humbling fact is one of the most empowering things anyone can do.

Those who consider power an ends are indeed weak and limited in how much they can accomplish. Those who can leverage power to achieve loftier goals, however, are anything but weak. Where the paradox truly lies is that once one acquires all the power necessary to accomplish a greater goal, power that was once a means then becomes an end and holding onto it requires a great deal or indeed ALL of the mental capacity available to the one in power. The limit then, can obviously be defined in relation to the original goal for which power was amassed to reach.

If a goal is too small, the limit will be quickly reached. If a goal is too large, achieving it let alone sustaining the power at the limit could be impossible. However, if a goal is constantly evolving, generating the power required to reach it could be limited only by the goal-setter's lifespan. The funny thing is that we set evolving goals in day-to-day life but few of us have the sheer will to stick with them until they are accomplished then invest more energy in redefining them to be more challenging and require more power. I don't know about you, but when I accomplish a goal it's nigh-on impossible to resist the temptation to sit back and relax instead of start working right away at a greater goal.