The Power of Power

A random thought popped into my mind a month or so back. I can’t recall what prompted it, perhaps a reflection on the difficulties of parenthood, but it fitted in nicely with a topic I’ve had an interest in for some time: the nature of power. No, not a Newtonian concept in the realms of physics but the somewhat ethereal imposition of authority and dominance by one individual or group over another. So, what was this random thought? Well, it struck me that the essential control a parent exerts over their offspring during childhood, breaks down into the fundamental elements defining the nature of power. Fiscality, emotionality, communications and physicality are all dominated by the parent to protect, support and nurture the vulnerable child, until the latter is ready to face the world on their own. Once free of the nest, they will find a world of others utilising these same factors to exert control and obtain power, many without the benevolence of a parent. Added to protect, support and nurture, you will find exploitation or abuse.

I used the term ethereal earlier with deliberation. There is something ill-defined about power in our modern world. How does one person lead a country? Of course, there is a complex structure filtering that power downwards, but still, you focus in on the individual and it is hard to define what they possess to set them apart from others. Within the animal kingdom the exertion of power is clear to see. It revolves around that most fundamental instinct to pass on one’s genes, the Darwinian dance, with the most powerful male attracting female mates, while fighting off his male rivals. Just picture the rutting stag, bellowing to prove he’s the loudest and deepest, decorating his mighty antlers with moss and grass in a competition of grandeur, and locking horns with his competitors in a battle to determine who is the strongest. With old age the strength wains, the youngsters grow in confidence, and power changes hands in an often brutal manner. In the early days of hominins, this scenario was also played out, size and strength proving the key determiner in who dominated. For most of the six million years of our existence little changed, even into the more sophisticated tribal structures of the later Stone Age. As communities became more complex, intelligence will have become a factor, complementing strength and size to outwit opponents, but the mightiest fighter would rule the roost.

Then humanity took a different route with civilisation, whereby power moved to the collective. And communities used that power to dominate other communities. In time, institutions formed, rigid societal structures developed, social fluidity lessened, wealth became distributed unevenly and control passed between fewer people. So, power still rested with the individual/select individuals but was sourced from their control over the collective and through the institutions. Genes remained at the centre of power, with ruling families determined to protect their bloodline, but size and strength were not always as important. A ritual remains. As nature presents it's power through posturing, we have translated this into pageantry. A king or emperor wielded their power through precedence, in many cases presented as a divine selection. Of course, if they proved themselves ‘weak’, now defined through the outcomes of battles or harvests, then others waited in the wings to take advantage and make their play for power. But this opportunity lay open only to those with access to wealth and armies themselves or a similar bloodline. If the people revolted then any change in leadership would inevitable come from the ruling class not the peasant ranks.

The Early Modern age saw a pivotal moment for western societies with respect to power. Kings and queens grappled for absolute power, states stretched their authority to new continents and over other peoples considered less sophisticated, and yet ideas seeded for a different, fairer world. The French Revolution, kicking off the Modern Age, erased those precious bloodlines with the guillotine, opening up power to a new class. While power once again ended up in the hands of a few, led by Napoleon Bonaparte, a sea change had occurred. Those in power now feared the power of the common man. With a touch of irony, to retain power the ruling classes realised they must relinquish some power to head off revolution. This has enabled the building of our modern democracies. Power still resides with a minority, a more variable minority, but it is about earning or gain access to the keys to offices of power (it's interesting we still portray our cinematic heroes through the animalistic representation of power: strong and always gets the girl). A state executive may have access to that big red button to launch a hundred nuclear warheads and bring about Armageddon - a frightening power - but in a democracy that individual could also be voted out by their party, the electorate, or simply ignored by a sizeable part of the population - a dead-man walking in terms of politics and power.

We’ve seen in modern times how the cult of personality has generated power, cultivated through traditional and social media (communications), tapping into grievances (emotionality), bullying opponents with threats (physicality) but ultimately superficial and shallow. Indeed, where as institutions have held the tools of power in the modern age, we are now seeing some of those core elements drifting away from them. Governments stimulated the emotions that drove men to sign-up in their thousands at the outbreak of the First World War. They controlled the media, created propaganda, drip-fed the populace. And they controlled the arms and finances to execute the war. Nowadays, a hundred different sources provide a hundred different narratives. The individual can find the one that suits themselves. Even at a financial level, some companies and their owners are richer than the majority of countries around the world, able to influence a generation with their marketing, send rockets into space or manipulate justice with their resources in the legal system (e.g. outlasting a plaintiff with limited resources). We even have private armies travelling the world, fighting other people’s wars, something I thought had been left behind during the Italian Wars of the Renaissance period. Are we on the brink of another sea change?

Most of us won’t run a country, multi-national company or private army, but we’ll have the opportunity to exert or react to power in our own way. The important thing is we recognise what is benevolent power and what is exploitative or abusive power and that can still be instilled within us by good parenting.

Nathaniel M Wrey