Power

by

"One oil press is as (bad) as ten slaughterhouses, one tavern as (bad as) ten oil presses, one brothel as (bad as) ten taverns, one king as (bad as) ten brothels." -- from "The Laws of Manu," Sacred Books of the East, vol. 25, trans. George Buehler, http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu.htm

Distrust of our rulers is hardly new. As the ancients saw it, a single king's depravity is the equivalent of 10,000 slaughterhouses (do the math). That's not as much fun, and definitely not as colorful, asstating the equivalence in brothels. But, it effectively conveys the magnitude of the thing: Power is dangerous, and wielding power is an unsavory, bloody business.

Asserting moral equivalence is inexact at best; at worst, it is simply misleading. But, let's give our ancestors credit for a truth that continually roils our lives, what we might call the paradox of social power. Stated simply, the paradox is this:

  • Power is necessary to hold society together, yet its exercise invariably undermines the social fiber required to keep society together. What power gives with one hand—order and security—it takes away with the other in the form of distrust and, ultimately, insecurity.

For that reason, elevation of a person (orparty or government) to legitimate power (what we in the U.S. call “public office”) is a devil’s bargain. We can have the order we want and need, but only at a price: the near certainty that the power on which that order rests will eventually engender the disorder that we detest, resent or even fear.

For a dramatically brilliant portrayal of this Hobbesian state of affairs, I recommend watching the award-winning Netflix series, “House of Cards,” or at least as much as you can stomach. Actually, Thomas Hobbes, a 16th-century English philosopher (that's his portrait above), is the foremost proponent of a strong ruler as the only realistic solution to the paradox of power.

Hobbes' point was that we may disapprove of the bloody king and the moral corruption his power entails. But, all told, he said, even tyranny imposed in the service of order is far preferable to its alternative, i.e., chaos. In such an unthinkable world, he famously said, human life is inevitably “nasty, brutish and short.”

It’s commonplace these days to observe that we’re living in dangerous times. Precisely what the danger is can be argued, of course. But, it’s hard to dispute the plausibility of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s view that the great battle of our day is an epochal power struggle between the forces of order and disorder. Wherever we look, we see these diametrically opposite forms of power in violent conflict and manifesting diverse forms of social instability such as the deadly ebola epidemic in Africa and extreme economic inequality plaguing capitalist societies.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t enjoy pondering a possible Hobbesian world for my children or grandchildren. Neither tyranny nor social anarchy seem like best-case scenarios. But, if we can believe our own eyes and those of competent observers, we are living these days on a fine line between the two, and the balance of power could tilt at any time toward one or the other.

The urgent task facing us who envision a better world is to pull us back from the brink and make that increasingly “fine line” a much wider line as quickly as possible. In metaphorical terms, the task is one of adapting for contemporary use Aristotle’s Golden Mean as the place between extremes where social power is used for the good of all and not just a few. In social terms, the task is one of community building and cultural transformation built upon the Golden Mean (i.e., avoiding extremes).

Finally, the task is the basis for the “coming ethics revolution” that forms part of the subtitle of this column. At its core it urges civic organizations, churches, corporations and small business, and of course individuals, to build ethical practice and reflection into the warp and woof of their life. As a tangible way to “widen” the common line we’re walking, this would reduce the likelihood of disaster and increase the likelihood of the wise use of power.

The image of a king being as bad as ten brothels was prudent wisdom for yesterday. It’s a cautionary word about the unprecedented perils of power for today. Unheeded, though, I wonder: What are the chances there will be a tomorrow?

Stephen Swecker, the Ethics Coach, blogs at Ethics Unplugged.