Power vs Force
A philosophical conversation.
While training at the Citizens Climate Lobby, my instructors Amy Bennett and Brett Cease, brought up the concept of power vs force. The philosophical relation between the two got me thinking, and it inspired me to write this blog. Feel free to add onto the conversation, I always love to hear people’s voices and their own opinions on matters!
Power: What is it?
Stapling a definition to power isn’t the least bit grueling. Within a few minutes of research, a variety of alternating characteristics relating to power crop up. These include influence, competence, as well as ability.
The longer definitions, pretty much can be summarized as one’s ability to influence their own, and or other’s behavior, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Below are the top two that I found after a quick googling of the definition.
“The ability to do something or act in a particular way, especially as a faculty or quality.”
“The capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events.”
This is why grasping power isn’t a complex process. Many of us measure our success and failure, along with our social status in life, in contrast to individual vs external power. So to put mildly, the quotes above are very familiar to us.
However, there is more to power than that meets the eye. This is evident, because so many philosophers have had their own take on power, and some of the interpretations are even contradicting.
Max Weber, a late 19th to early 20th century German social theorist, argued that power was a monopolization of what’s considered authoritative force. Prior to Weber, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued the necessity of state power and force, calling his theory, “The Leviathan”.
Newer philosophers of the 20th century, such as Michel Foucault, recognize the role of state power. However, Foucault also identifies other stems of violence that root in people, and not just the state.
This power he spoke of was never defined like Weber’s and Hobbes’s were. He instead examined the role of power in chattel slavery, gender discrimination, and racism.
Power in relation to Force
What all these philosophers keep mentioning, is the role of force in power. Unfortunately, the reason why they discuss this, is because of the monstrosities of human right violations that took place during their lives.
Weber was alive and living in Germany during WWI. Hobbes had a first row seat watching the English Civil War as well as Oliver Cromwell’s rule afterwards. And of course, Foucault witnessed WWII.
Each of these events, lead them to write about the relationship between force and power, because the people in power during each of these regimes used force to maintain it. The biggest question is why? Why would leaders use force in order to influence people? Well, this was answered long ago by an Italian Renaissance free thinker, Machiavelli.
“It’s better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” ~Machiavelli
Machiavelli, being a politician as well, argued that it is better to be feared than loved. The reason for this, is simply that if people are obedient to you, due to their love of your leadership. If you do something that changes their endearing thoughts, they’ll have no further reason to cooperate with your rule. In other words, you lose power.
On the contrary, if you’re feared, people have reason to cooperate with you despite their judgement. This allows those in power to stay in power longer, because they don’t have to deliberately take action to satisfy people in order to maintain their throne.
This is why many leaders of historical, and some modern regimes, use force to subdue people. It’s easier to scare people into cooperation, over implementing positive policy that’ll grant them popularity.
Does Power require Force?
With many brilliant philosophers discussing the relations between force and power, it becomes difficult to see power as a positive. The problem with this, is that power is a marvelous tool, used to collectively create stunning accomplishments, yet the use of it has been demonized.
Power has already been given a cold shoulder by many, and some, have completely left it in the dark. This is because the boundaries for “ethical” power, are quite blurred, so people don’t trust those who have it.
However, power in and of itself does not require force, and it can be conducted in an ethical manner. If we want to work with the concept of power being a positive, we’ll need to clearly define the borders of what’s considered ethical usage of it.
Ethical Power
Power is already an opaque topic, and is even murkier considering the amount of it being abused both historically, and in present times. For this reason, it’s important to filter out all other uses of it as unacceptable, unless it’s voluntary.
What I mean by voluntary power, is when an individual can create will without the usage of force. Going back to what Machiavelli argued, with love being a difficult platform to control others with. It’s important to understand that although Machiavelli is correct, it’s not the most powerful.
With force, it’s easy to control others, and the opposite is the case with love. So what this tells us, is that those who control others due to love, have more power. This confuses people, but it’s true.
Real power, isn’t wielding a sword to control fellow man. It’s offering hand, and connecting with them. The connection piece takes greater time and investment, but it pays off through producing greater influence, that’ll stand the test of time, even years after you’re gone.
This is the separation between the effectiveness of ethical power and force. If one can gain ethical power, through befriending others, they’ll be compelled to follow your will even after your passing.
Future generations could potentially idolize your work one day. So although it requires more effort, ethical power grants you influence over the present, and the future. It is for this reason, in my opinion, ethical power is far stronger.
Examples of individuals who achieved this include Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. They not only created influence in their time, their legacy is comparable to a tsunami, even after their death.
