Sunday, September 15, 2013

Who puts the POW! in power?

              
Unbeknownst to many, Machiavelli's "The Prince" provides the true template for the ambitious goal of unlimited power. Indeed, even I follow his principles, many times manipulating my naive sister through petty threats and thoughtless force. People tend to believe that obtaining power requires the use of intimidation, force and deception. However, through such aggressive means, one may wonder just how much power lies in the greedy hands of those who manipulate. In the "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain, although white males abused their power by fettering the rights of African Americans through coercion and terror, Twain demonstrates that the white male's power is not unlimited because he cannot control another's mentality.
              Twain satirizes a world where the white male reigns supreme and holds the power to physically bind other humans.Through the protagonist, Huck Finn, Twain explains that despite the forceful tactics of Southerners, true power lies in those who are able to use it responsibly to benefit the needs of others. For example, the king and the dauphin had full power to turn  Huck and Jim in; however, what they commanded was only the physical states of the runaways. Even if the king and dauphin forced Huck and Jim, they would never be able to dictate their mentalities. Forced power is limited that much-- it can only direct the physical beings of a human, never the character. As a parallel, Huck uses unadulterated power, without sneaky deception and threats. His power as a white male coupled with concern for Jim's well being enables Huck to manipulate his words and place himself and Jim out of numerous dangers. The power that Huck wields does not dictate Jim's physical state; rather, by using minimal power he possesses, Huck is able to expand his own power and open new doors to friendship and respect. He gains the support and trust of Jim, thus bringing his power one step higher than the king and dauphin's. Twain demonstrates through this polarity that an individual can not wield unlimited amounts of power, especially not through force and manipulation. Rather, the power arises from the support of others, together accumulating closer to unlimited power.
             That being said, it seems even the most primitive animals understand the concept that working together creates more power. In Chimpanzee Politics, Frans de Waal outlines the detailed social behavior of chimps and accents the distinct contrast to their evolutionary relatives, humans. Waal acknowledges  that the Machiavellian views of power do not necessarily enable one to become the alpha. For example, the three chimps he observed demonstrated that the social hierarchy is based less on manipulative coercion and more on the power of teamwork and respect. Waal indicates that those chimps that relied solely on domination were unable to climb to the top, and rather, were demoted by subordinates. In reality, power that is obtained through pure force is limited and ultimately leads to failure and those who do so have only the power to command bodies, not hearts. True power lies in the unlimited ability to accumulate bonds and respect from others--those who ascend to the throne do so on the support and love of others.
           

7 comments:

  1. Let me first say that the title to this post is quite funny. I enjoyed your reference to Machiavelli's "The Prince". Your point that power is limited and unlimited based on the multi-faceted nature of power is amazing. I completely with the point you make that the power of "force" is weaker than the power of support of friendship.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow Karen! I have to say, I am very impressed! I really enjoyed your anecdote in the introduction paragraph, it gave your blog a more personal and effective voice. In addition, the entire piece flows very well and sounds mature. The comparison you drew between chimps and people is really insightful. Excellent overall!

    ReplyDelete
  3. These are very interesting theories. But often in history, men who are in power have taken it by force, and those are the ones that have lasted the longest. Let me ask you, how long do these cooperations last. What governments and reigns do you know that have thrived on the sole notion of a man who has won the love of his people? In the end isn't the power taken by force the same as the power taken by love? Because people are fickle and true power never lasts anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Omkar, am I not good enough for you :'(

    ReplyDelete