Power: How much is too much? - by Dr. Steve Palmquist, Posted May 13, 2001

Philosophy Posted May 12, 2001

Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe

Summary of the 5 April 2001 Meeting of the HKPC’s Kowloon Branch

Topic: “Power: How much is too much?”

Introduced by Yvonne Chow Gautier

Moderated by Steve Palmquist

After passing around a set of handouts, Yvonne talked through some of the main points, suggesting that each person should focus their reflections on determining the point where power becomes comfortable. She encouraged everyone to have an open mind, willing to examine our own value system and to take in all sorts of new ideas. Some of the many ideas she conveyed were as follows. People who love power and those who despise it actually have the same monomania. Powerful people learn how to use their enemies; they don’t talk too much; they often find ways of manipulating people that the other people will enjoy. (See the handout’s “checklist” section for other characteristics.) Leaders are often good storytellers, tend to be well traveled, like to challenge existing authorities, feel chosen, and often come from unhappy childhood homes. Followers usually see themselves as benefiting from their association with leaders. Current developments in medical science, especially the human genome project, are giving many people hope of overcoming fate, but the extension of life span for the rich will lead to an economic disaster. Yvonne recommended the habit of using “scenarios” to decide what should and should not be done; to be successful, this method requires us to have open minds and to consider a wide variety of possible outcomes. We should make good use of “filters”--i.e., sources of trusted information that can save us the trouble of doing the research ourselves. Yvonne encouraged us, as we discuss such issues, to refer to the sample questions listed in her handout and to be willing to laugh at ourselves.

Mike started off the question time by asking whether the strict antithesis between “leaders” and “followers” is a useful model. Yvonne replied that she believes some people really are determined to be one or the other, and that this limits the way different people respond to such issues. Mike suggested that reality may be more subtle than this: perhaps we all experience aspects of both leader and follower qualities, but some people tend to be closer to one extreme or the other most of the time. Yvonne agreed that we are all actually in between the two extremes to some extent.

Jeff asked whether Yvonne’s references to “giving and taking” imply an opposition between people with power and people without power. Yvonne answered “yes”. Mike then asked whether there can ever be a responsible use of power. Yvonne again affirmed that power can be a good thing: both sides of the equation can be either good or bad, depending on how they are applied.

Jenny asked Yvonne to define “power”. Yvonne referred everyone to the handout’s checklist for a detailed set of characteristics, adding that in a nutshell power is the ability to get what you want. Sandi replied to the latter remark by asking whether this means children have lots of power, since they often get whatever they want. After a brief discussion of this point, Yvonne compared life to a stage: going through the various “scenarios” in our minds is like rehearsing the lines of a play; people tend to adopt different plot lines (e.g., “winner vs. loser”) in different types of situation.

Steve asked whether Yvonne could specify a principle that can be used to help us answer the question given in the meeting’s topic, in light of the given definition of power. Jeff observed that if everything I want is by definition good, then it would be difficult to see how I could ever have “too much” power. Yvonne replied that greed is indeed a problem, especially as it relates to the use of certain recent technologies. However, she regards this as a personal issue, requiring individuals to restructure their use of money, learn to transform their relationship with the environment, lower their demands, etc. Several people then asked what such lifestyle issues have to do with power. Yvonne explained that the level of demands people have varies widely from country to country. The typical Australian, for example, demands far less than the typical person from the USA or Hong Kong. One person objected that good and bad are not such black and white issues.

Angela S. said she had expected this topic to be about politics and government, as in the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, and perhaps also about culture. Veronica agreed, adding that Yvonne’s introduction has interpreted the topic on an exclusively personal level. Yvonne pointed out that the two are not mutually exclusive and agreed that the topic relates to both types of issue. At this point, Steve announced that it was time to break up into small groups, and suggested that each group keep both the political and the personal applications in mind. He also recommended that a good way to insure that the discussions remain philosophical is for each group to attempt to come up with principles that can help us to determine when a person’s use of power has exceeded its proper limits.

After calling the small groups back together, Steve asked people to share any interesting ideas that had arisen during their discussions, especially anything relating to ways of defining power or principles that can be used to determine how much power is too much. Glendy said her group defined power as the ability to influence the behaviour of others.

Angela S. pointed out that the meaning of “too much” will depend on the framework. For example, in a political context law determines what is right, so the proper limits of power are transgressed whenever laws are being broken. In each case, whatever determines the framework determines how much is too much. Also, balance is an important principle: if power is balanced then it is not too much, regardless of the framework or even if the framework changes.

Jeff claimed that parents have absolute power over a one-year old child. But Steve noted that babies also have a considerable degree of power over their parents: whenever the cry, they gain emotional control over their parents’ behaviour.

One participant suggested that an important aspect of this whole issue is determining where power comes from. Rose replied that it comes from other people giving up their own power to a certain person. Often we do this when that person has something we want. For example, a boss has power only because the employees give it to him or her; they do this because he has control over something they want, namely money. Jeff added that those who follow a powerful person are often just refusing to take responsibility for themselves, and yet in a sense this gives them more power.

Sandi observed that the topic could also be related to the issue of sexual harassment. Steve agreed, suggesting that our relationships are all based on implicit agreements defining the power relation that will be appropriate in the given situation and that when (for example) a boss tries to use his or her position to gain sexual favours from an employee, this is typically regarded as a misuse of power. Yvonne exclaimed that someone who is really skillful at managing power will submit to such an arrangement and simply enjoy the sex in order to get what she wants! This gave rise to the question: when does “use” become “abuse”?

Mike picked up on the latter question, asking where ethics comes into the picture. If ethics matters at all, then it seems we should maintain a healthy skepticism to all uses of power. Angela S. agreed, adding that if power comes from people, then the will of the people is what determines what is or is not “too much”; and this “too much” is what we end up calling “immoral”. Steve then introduced Kant’s “principle of right”, which states that an action can be “right” only if my use of freedom in performing that action is consistent with an equivalent use of freedom by all others concerned. That is, there must be a balance in our use of freedom; taking away other people’s freedom in order to enhance our own is wrong. Jeff noted that the U.S. Constitution has a similar implication: do what you want to do, as long as it does not impinge upon other people’s freedom.

Yvonne observed that this assumes human beings are the most important factor to consider in this issue. Jeff stressed that this is why it is so important to keep in mind how our actions affect others. For example, once we realize that refrigerants destroy the ozone layer, we should try to minimize their use. We’re not responsible when harm comes to others through our own ignorance, because our acts and choices sometimes have much wider affects than we could possibly anticipate. But we are responsible for the consequences of our use of power. Yvonne added that knowledge is power, and illustrated this by referring to Steve’s leadership of this group. Steve said he hopes his organization of these meetings would serve to empower those who come. Yvonne explained that this is because to give away power is to increase power. Unfortunately, some people instead use their power to manipulate others.

Steve then asked if any other groups came up with principles that are relevant to the topic. Susanna answered that the ability to change is a key aspect of power. Steve suggested that this provides the basis for a principle regarding the minimum use of power: we have too little power if we are unable to change a situation that needs changing.

Kou Li suggested that we can determine when someone has too much power by examining whether their actions are irresponsible and the results are counter-productive or against the common good. Angela S. mentioned Lee Kwan Yu as a political leader who may have wielded too much power. Steve asked what it was about his leadership that was inappropriate. Kou Li then suggested that the area under his control may have been too small, as a result of which he exercised too much detailed control. Rose added that his control was “too much” because he took more than people were willing to give. Jeff pointed out that many people were willing; they freely gave up their power in the belief that Lee’s policies would produce the good results they all wanted.

Yvonne concluded the discussion by encouraging us all to see ourselves as having power over our own life. She reminded us that we live through rehearsal of various scripts we have written for the “play” of our own life. The only way to prevent tragedy is to be prepared. “Prepare your scripts!” she exclaimed. Organisations have 20 year plans; so also should we as individuals develop strategies for combating the dangers ahead and for increasing the happiness we experience. “Rehearse!”

Three sets of topics were suggested for the May meeting:

I. Ethics: changing morals

Is relativism true?

Are there fixed Principles?

II. Why do we need philosophy?

What good does philosophy do?

Does philosophy have any practical purpose?

III. What is sexism?

Why were the Greek philosophers gay?