LIFE ATTITUDES OF COOPERATION AND VULNERABILITY VS. POWER AND ADVANTAGE
Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D. 1-25
From birth to death, human beings are engaged in trying to influence other human beings, because as social creatures, one of the primary determinants of our quality of life is how others respond to us and treat us. Even babies begin to shape their own behavior to produce the parental responses they prefer. Some of these influence efforts involve rewarding and punishing, and others involve conveying emotions and inner states through verbal or nonverbal communication. Some people seek to be liked or loved by others as a platform for influence, and some utilize power to influence others. Some seek status as a base for having influence, since others generally assign higher status to and respond more positively and deferentially to those who seem to have desired qualities or outcomes, such as pleasing appearance, wealth, age, physical size and strength, power, and being “the best” at something.
Every human being must choose between two basic orientations to seeking need fulfillment in life. Both are efforts to influence others. One approach seeks and uses power over others and taking advantage of others whenever possible in order to get what is wanted (a dissocial approach), and the other favors cooperation and treating other people well (a prosocial approach) as the route to getting what is wanted in life. Power can be exerted through physical abuse, physical threat, emotional threat, blackmail, extortion, intimidation, or other threats or abuse. Taking advantage can be done by lying, disinformation, demeaning, dissimulation, and other distortions. (Perhaps you can already see yourself clearly in terms of this choice, although some people try to use both approaches—which does not maximize the benefits of either basic approach.)
This basic choice occurs quite early in life. Choosing the power approach usually results from on a child’s imitation of a parent who uses this approach and is fueled by the child’s dislike of the parent’s uses of power. Any person using the power approach puts his/her needs far above those of others and is viewed by others as being basically selfish. The child experiences this and may decide that the only way to do well in life is to himself/herself adopt the power approach and compete with the parent for ultimate power in the relationship. The worse a child is treated in a family, the more likely he/she is to adopt the power approach (although some go the other direction—of demeaning and debasing themselves to try to create sympathy or guilt in the stronger person).
A small number of children choose the power approach by default, when both parents are relatively powerless, and the child can either readily manipulate them with power or must develop power to compensate for the parents’ powerlessness to keep the family safe and viable.
In this essay we deal with directing personal power toward others to benefit oneself, which is always to the detriment of someone. Even leading a country in war is to the detriment of the enemies as well as to the detriment of all those injured or killed. This discussion therefore excludes the understanding of power as the ability to accomplish some goal, such as the power to cook oneself a meal or to fix a toilet, and it excludes exercising power to benefit another person and not oneself directly. Societies have different standards for which uses of power for self-benefit are acceptable, even if they result in harm. Used car salesmen are not prosecuted criminally for lying directly or through omission, even if they harm customers (unless they lie in contracts). In U.S. society we do not sue people or convict people for lying, in general but only with respect to legitimate expectations of others, as when a doctor lies about his/her qualifications and the patient suffers harm because of relying on the doctor’s representation of himself/herself.
A person adopting the power approach does not, in general, trust others and expects them to treat him/her badly. Power is thus developed and used to protect the self. The basic problem in life of the power approach is that because of the person’s lack of trust and expectation of bad treatment, he/she is less open to love from others, which requires being vulnerable to the exigencies that are a part of any relationship. The power approach, then, is basically an angry and fearful approach to living—fearful of mistreatment, unable to trust, and angry at the possibility of more mistreatment, with attempts to compensate by controlling others to their disadvantage.
The impulse of many is to relate to the power person as to a parent, feeling safer because of the presumed protection of a benefactor, hoping for help when in need, and feeling gratitude, as if the power person were responsible somehow for the good parts of one’s life (just as we realized as children that our parents were responsible for the good in our lives, as well as for some of the bad). We can have these feelings of safety even if parents have mainly used a power approach with us, as long as we have been provided with adequate food, clothing, and shelter.
The reality of relating to a power person is that the power person can support and tolerate a person who is benefiting him/her, but the minute his/her power is questioned or the dependent person acts in a way that the power person doesn’t like, the dependent person will be cast out or perhaps destroyed. The power person has no real loyalties, since he/she cannot trust anyone that he/she does not control through money, threats, or secrets. In order to connect with him/her, you must give up control to him/her. The power person also knows that there are other power-seeking persons in the wings scheming and waiting to take his/her power away for themselves, which makes him/her even more dangerous.
Since we experience human families as structured in a hierarchical fashion and since parents have so much more power than children to start with, the power approach feels very natural to those who adopt it. As adults, they exult in having control and having this protective shield from being hurt by others, but to maintain the protection, others must be kept in subordinate, relatively powerless positions (which can encourage others to develop and use power as well and also truncates the possibilities of emotional maturing and self-development on the part of both self and others).
Because of our experience as children, our tendency as adults is to structure things hierarchically, with leaders and followers (as in our families), which automatically gives those at the top more power. Because of their need for power, those with a power approach tend to move in life toward positions at the top of such hierarchies (to have power over more and more people). Since most people favoring the power approach are resentful of not being treated well enough, and since most people favoring the cooperation approach do not seek those top positions, most societies have leaders who use the power approach and are not empathically concerned about the welfare or feelings of those below them, which results in a fair amount of harm to the self-esteem and the options of those below them.
This question of some having power over others affects our lives in many contexts. Husbands having power over wives is based in the competitions for power between men and in the strength superiority of men over women, so the underlying issue in our gender relations conflicts is whether and why men “should” have power over women. In actuality, there is no “should” here; it’s just a matter of what people want (which is why men did not give up their power over women voluntarily). Even our values are what people want and have no objective reality in the universe (which is why changes in the perception of “rights” takes so long).
Adults have power over children though this is somewhat different in that children could easily be harmed by their own behavioral choices in our complicated world with many dangers. Children almost universally want to get out from under their parents’ control as they grow. Some parents try hard not to lose that control, which illustrates how hard it is to choose to be vulnerable for the sake of someone else’s benefit, in this case, vulnerable to the pain of seeing harm come to one’s child if one lets them decide things for themselves.
It would seem that hierarchical social structures are necessary for more complex societies that involve a great deal of specialization. Not everyone is good at everything, so if some are better at organizing joint activities and directing them, then to use those skills, we create (without even trying) a hierarchy. The question is how to keep those higher in the hierarchy serving the group interests and not their own and to keep all of us from seeing those higher up as “better than” everyone else. Power can be utilized usefully and fairly, if the actions of powerful ones are focused on the common good and on fulfilling the responsibilities of the position (this applies to presidents and parents alike) and temptations to use power for personal benefit are rejected. This would seem to be possible if those in more powerful positions are average people, since they could be trained to the common good and monitored regarding personal interests, but unfortunately people who love power and do put their personal interests above the common good gravitate toward more powerful positions (through subterfuge and lying about themselves, for the most part),so we have a constant problem regarding protecting the common good.
In hierarchical social structures, then, those higher up have power over those lower down (everyone else), and we inevitably attempt to justify this to ourselves by accepting that those higher up are “better than” us, when in fact they are not inherently better. In fact, there are more caring and responsible people lower down than higher up, since lying and manipulation are key skills for moving up and staying up in the hierarchy. People who seek power are temperamentally oriented toward asserting that the rules that apply to everyone else do not apply to them, and they are attracted to demonstrating their power over those around them, which usually ends up badly for those abused.
The key concept in a more democratic structure is equality, so to maintain a democratic structure, we must give up our opportunities to be “better than” our fellow citizens and to have power over them. We must see ourselves as equal to other citizens and not better or deserving more. Sharing is the name of the game. When power or benefit get too out of balance in a supposedly democratic society, as they are currently in terms of income and wealth in our society, those down below will ultimately rebel and either burn the house down or elect someone who promises to change things (e.g, Mr. Trump).
It is unclear whether there are genetic factors that nudge individuals toward one approach or the other. People with a power approach can change to more of a cooperative approach if they decide that that is the only way to get something they want (e.g., love). People with a cooperative approach are unlikely to change to a power approach, since it violates their sense of appropriate relationships with others.
The cooperation/vulnerability approach is adopted readily by children in homes in which parents share with children or involve children in activities that demonstrate how mutually beneficial cooperation operates (with people agreeing on a mutual goal and each looking for ways to contribute to all gaining the goal). This approach uses understanding the needs, emotions, and abilities of self and others and the building of social contracts for the benefit of all parties. A certain amount of trust in others is necessary. Vulnerability is involved in these mutual attempts at goal attainment (whether that is in building a bridge or deepening a relationship) because misunderstanding or missteps by somewhat independent other parties can harm oneself or make it impossible for one to reach one’s goal. People using this approach do not have the fallback option of forcing others to do what they want others to do as in the power approach. We can’t make someone else love us, and we can’t be sure that our goals align completely with those of others who also wish to cooperate. People in a cooperative relationship have more freedom (than in the power approach), but they are also vulnerable to the other parties’ actions.
The cooperative approach does not imply total equality but does give everyone more options since they are not being forced in one direction or another. The more rules there are about the relationships/contracts involved in a goal effort, the less power in general the people of higher status have in relation to the people of lower status (e.g., union rules about hiring and firing). The cooperative approach emphasizes the importance of sharing (no one benefits more than others, at least not to an outrageous degree).
A few people seek power over themselves, rather than over others, as a means of becoming the most adaptive person they can. Jesus embodied the cooperative/vulnerability approach and eschewed the power approach. Equality of people in all classes was an important feature of the new Christianity, but to find acceptance the new (Roman) church turned to power and emulated the symbolic power features of the state (huge buildings, expensive clothes, etc.) in part to try to impress and win over converts. A few popes have demonstrated how to teach loving others, but most have been swamped in the administrative and theological power struggles that seem to be so typical of the Vatican. It seems incongruent that so few Christian churches encourage their members to be more like Jesus but focus instead on guilt-salvation-forgiveness issues.
The person with power causes harm to others when he or she ignores ethical and moral concerns in exercising power to achieve a goal (as when a person with power bribes or blackmails public officials into approving a building project that requires destruction of an existing neighborhood of homes, even though it results in new and nicer homes, albeit more expensive, or when person A with power in a family keeps other family members from helping family member B with a problem, with the implied threat of harm of one sort or another, even though the others would like to help member B). If power is exercised on the environment, such as in the building of a great dam, it may be of benefit to many but harmful to some who are displaced in the process.
The basic ethical issue with power is that a person having power or using power is trying to get what he/she wants at a cost to others. Others oppose his having or using power because if he/she exercises his power or succeeds, they will be disadvantaged or harmed. There is no discussion of win-win strategies, since most power-oriented persons perceive this as a zero-sum game (only one person can win). If a person sought what he wanted without using the leverages of power, others would not be so inclined to oppose him/her. So, a focus on power logically and inevitably implies an atmosphere of contention and loss, and the more people who are involved in uses of power, the more negative is the atmosphere.
An interesting recent book, The 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene, synthesizes lessons regarding power from around the world and across the centuries. The author contends that human life is inevitably an arena of power struggles, so that it is simply in everyone’s interest to learn how to gain and wield power. He emphasizes the importance of gathering and maintaining one’s power by deftly keeping one’s intentions secret, keeping others off balance, keeping people dependent on one, deceiving and manipulating whenever possible, being unpredictable, avoiding being associated with the unfortunate and needy, and destroying enemies completely whenever possible. This is a picture of a social environment with little room for love, closeness, trust, and cooperation (except to destroy a joint enemy), and I leave it to the reader to decide which kind of society he or she would prefer to live in. I personally responded best to messages of love and acceptance in my religious upbringing, and I have always marveled at how ministers and priests so often neglect this and turn to the typical social manipulations that we all learn and try (guilting, shaming, claiming superiority, etc.).
Human beings have a strong tendency to glorify powerful leaders, praising their accomplishments while ignoring the harm that they do in the course of their careers. Voters prefer candidates who seem to be powerful to candidates who do not seek power, and persons in positions of responsibility who do not seem powerful are often criticized and discounted (e.g., Pres. Carter). Because they are powerful, we automatically assume that leaders of countries or corporations and admired entertainers and sports heroes must also be admirable people and give little credence to their peccadillos or to intimations that they are manipulating us psychologically for their own gain. Leaders such as Hitler and Stalin did enormous amounts of damage to the people of their societies, but we still (sort of) admire them for their seizures of and wielding of power. Generals such as Napolean and Alexander the Great are praised as geniuses, but their armies decimated the areas in which they moved and fought, taking (stealing) foodstuffs and other needed supplies from local people instead of having supply lines for all that was necessary.
Presidents and generals who win wars are praised for that while we ignore the costs in deaths and destruction to their own societies and to the defeated countries of those wars. When we think of Napoleon as a great man (or the Duke of Wellington), we imagine that we would want them leading our own country, but they were not nice people. They were quite willing to subject anyone in their path—especially other countries—to destruction. Hitler would have tried to destroy the United States, too, if it had been necessary or convenient to do so. Powerful men always leave some destruction in their paths.
As noted here, a certain proportion of the population responds to persons with power with admiration, envy, and obedience, even though everyone around a person with power is at risk for being harmed or disadvantaged. Being able to control others and get one’s way is certainly appealing in itself, and we can understand why people might admire a person who can do that. Readily obeying a person with power may stem from our having learned well to obey the more powerful as children in dealing with our parents, particularly if they used leverage and power strategies to control our behavior. Children who believe in values of fairness and equality taught to them by their parents would certainly detest and rebel against the deceit and manipulation of a person having and using power.
“Power differentials,” with their presumptions of potential harm to those with less power, are clearly present in any relationship between a person with more status and a person with less status, as in teacher-student, pastor-parishioner, and parent-child relationships, and power is also an issue in relations between men and women. The physical size and strength advantages of men, their supposed tendency to anger and physical expressions of anger, and their control of family income (in some families) enhance the power of men in relationships, and women naturally try to even up the power balance by using their greater emotional perspicacity, their roles as givers of nurturance and love, and whatever capacity they have to withhold sex in the particular relationship.
A counterclaim that one can use power on one’s enemies but not on one’s family and therefore have love, closeness, and trust at least within one’s in-group is simply not credible against the psychological evidence that indicates that people do not operate with that degree of compartmentalization. The skills and worldview needed for a life of power are quite different from the skills and worldview that are needed for a life of trust and cooperation, and I know of no examples of an individual doing both well (or even wanting to learn to do both well). Even those who might wish to have both, such as Tony Soprano, fail, because it is simply not human to be able to turn these two polar attitudes off and on at will. One inevitably ends up having and/or using power with family members as well, which inevitably leads to resentment and often to retaliation.
Power seekers have no wish to convert others into power persons, since these would represent a threat. People who prefer the cooperation/vulnerability approach can best influence others to also operate in the cooperation/vulnerability approach simply by demonstrating in their daily lives the best qualities of the approach—being understanding and empathic with others, sharing readily, treating others fairly, appreciating others, being open to love at all levels, and dealing in a healthy way with the disappointments that arise from being vulnerable with others.
In order to avoid some of the problems of having leaders who seek power, we as voters could avoid electing such persons and elect instead more leaders who insist on respect, courtesy, and fairness toward all and who seek in all actions to minimize harm to others. Many voters may feel safer with a power-seeking President at the helm, but they should also consider the harm that a power-seeking President can cause in his/her efforts to stay in power and continue to feel safe himself/herself.
Having leaders who are not power seekers does not necessarily make a country less safe, since it is entirely possible for a leader to avoid wars and still lead the country in preparing for self-defense and in heroic responses to attack. When a country is attacked, of course it will fight back, and of course there will be death and destruction, but in order to minimize the ravages of war, at the time of declaring war and especially after the war is over, we should seriously consider whether the war will be or was really “worth it” or whether some other solution (e.g., diplomatic or treaty) would have been better, comparing the gains and losses of a diplomatic solution with the gains and losses that occurred because of the war. To minimize abuses of power, non-power-oriented persons would be wise to vote only for persons for public office or corporate advisory boards who have the least amount of power motive.
It is up to each of us to decide what kind of world we prefer to live in (and to leave to our children). Do you prefer to live in a power/advantage world or a cooperation/vulnerability world? In the former, everyone has the opportunity to rise farther by being stronger and meaner, but many others will be hurt in the process, both because they were in the way of a power person and because power persons cause more wars as leaders. In the cooperation/vulnerability world, to have a more comfortable and productive world and to have a better chance at deep love, we give up our chance to muscle our way to the top and make ourselves more vulnerable to the decisions and actions of others. As a therapist, I have found that the greatest block to deep and abiding love relationships is the fear of being vulnerable. I clearly prefer the love and vulnerability approach.
People have evolved to unconsciously choose short-term gains over long-term gains (a bird in the hand….), and for many people this makes the power approach more appealing, since it produces faster results while the cooperation approach takes patience and investment to produce its greater gains, but people can also utilize their cognitive powers (looking at reality and how people actually gain their outcomes) to consciously choose the cooperation approach, with its added bonuses of less conflict, violence, and harm in general and its much greater advantage in the area of loving relationships.
Essays\powerorcooperationchoice