My Power Theory -- Beginnings

Beginnings of Power Theory

Dec 24, '08 2:15 PM for everyone

Newsweek's (1/5/09) cover story is on "The Story of Power" which reminded me of my own "power theory" that I used to throw out in my politics class from time to time and have now decided to revisit.

Short version (because there are numerous corollaries and adaptations): "In any given environment there is a finite amount of power. There will inevitably be a struggle for power (of varying intensity, depending upon the number and personalities of the inhabitants) within that environment."

Note -- an "environment" can be many things, from the cosmos to the planet to a country to a company to a family to something even smaller. (I suppose if you want to get psychological [and this just occurred to me through my fingers on the keyboard], even internally as various parts of our personality struggle for dominance.)

Apparently my theory has something in common with Nietzsche; I would have had to have actually read Nietzsche instead of just a couple random quotes to give him credit for influence: "My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension.... But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ('union') with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on."

Okay, he's way too deep for me. And there are lots of people who willingly cede power or have no desire for it for his idea to be a perfect fit for me. But one of my conclusions about power is that in the struggle for power within an environment, power is expended (lost) by the parties in conflict, which can, if the struggle is intense enough, result in a net loss of power no matter who "wins" the struggle. Thus, the voluntary sharing of power can actually result in a net gain (empowerment, if you will) for all concerned.

Because I am/was a teacher, let me illustrate using a classroom environment. The teacher requires control over the environment, Kids (in general, especially adolescents) also want control. If the environment is a constant war zone, everybody loses. The teacher (having a finite amount of power) expends so much in try keep control that (s)he cannot accomplish his/her primary objective. The kids, resistant to being controlled, also use their power not to learn, but in less productive ways. So much power is wasted in friction that the classroom environment suffers a net loss of power. Were the kids empowered to make decisions, and the teacher voluntarily gave up some control, both sides could use their (limited) power for the primary objective, learning. Mind you, the more authoritarian types could also be effective, at least in maintaining control and enforcing learning.

In my early years I was engaged in a constant struggle for power (for teachers; while I won't deny that I enjoy power, I at least convinced myself that I never pursued it for my own personal benefit) with the administration, who, understandably, were less than enthralled with my efforts (and often me, personally). What evolved, though, interestingly enough, that led to this theory, was the realization on each of our parts (special kudos to Roger Brodbeck and Jerry Schloss) that willingly sharing power actually resulted in increased power for all, because we expended so much less in the struggle to either gain or maintain. We need more objective sources to decide if that arrangement was a conscious decision or we just got tired of conflict.

In other words, pick your battles. That, of course, is not a new or unique concept. But it's a lesson that still goes unheeded on any number of levels and harmony and efficiency are often the net losers as a result.