In Perennial Philosophy, Huxley elaborates on the view that power is a kind of expansive craving. He remarks, "Craving for power is not a vice of the body, consequently knows none of the limitations imposed by a tired or satiated physiology upon gluttony, intemperance and lust. Growing with every successive satisfaction, the appetite for power can manifest itself indefinitely without interruption by bodily fatigue or sickness." (p.121).
Huxley's point is to suggest that, unlike with other desires, there is simply no 'curbing' of power through satiation. The more one seeks power and gains it, the more one wants to expand her or his power indefinitely. Huxley, maintains, "the nature of society is such that the higher a man [sic] climbs in the political, economic or religious hierarchy, the greater are his opportunities or resources for exercising power." (ibid) I suppose this principle does not just apply to rulers, but it applies to anyone who is forever seeking something more--such as another degree, another house, or another car. Huxley suggests that as people get older, their opportunities to expand power can only increase, which means more craving for power. Huxley is so pessimistic about the ability for power to be curbed or tamed that he goes on to remark, "No infallible method for controlling the political manifestations of the lust for power has ever been devised." (p.122) Only through a "divided" (or perhaps representative) government can power be kept in check.
Seeing that power can be an indefinite self-aggrandizing vehicle, is there a place in power for spirituality? In other words, does all power have to be corrupt, or could there potentially be spiritual forms of being powerful?
I think the question ends up becoming, for me: can a person be powerful in society without succumbing to the illusion of ego? I think the answer is yes: power can come precisely from lack of ego and even virtue. I think the idea is that truly powerful people are not seeking power for its own sake. For example, if someone is really using a principle of non-self attachment in their daily life, they will gain power of support from others in their endeavors, because they naturally harmonize with other minds. People will naturally find ways to benefit each other when their talents are being recognized and they are not trying to compete with each other to gain a single 'spotlight'.
If, on the other hand, power is pursued for its own sake, it ends up never being satisfied. I think it's because power is a result of actions, not an actual tool or a means. If I am doing things that support other beings or lead other beings to work better together, then power becomes a result of that specific endeavor aimed at harmony or peace. As some Taoist philosophers suggest, people simply work better when they are being governed according to their natural abilities and capacities to harmonize together. But if I then take that same principle and tell myself, "I can have the most power out of everyone", then I am taking a result and making it the means: I take 'my' power to be the means to conquer or influence others. In fact, however, it's the other way around, isn't it? My "power", far from being the tool to influence others, is the result of others' acknowledgement of my efforts on their behalf. In that sense, whatever power I have is always the result of others' support. It's never entirely my effort that sustains power. For this reason, the effort to 'be' powerful is a never ending one, because it is always relying on the continuous support of others, be it stakeholders or voters or party members, etc.
My point here is to suggest that perhaps power was never meant to be 'gained' in the first place, because it is only the result of small causes and consequences emerging in the moment, across many hands. I have even heard the argument that power is only temporarily lent to people to fulfill certain social obligations. Yet, a lot of belief systems tend to reinforce the illusion that power is something to be gained and kept. People who accumulate educational degrees to 'add to the resume' are under the belief that more of something can give them more ability to influence job interviewers on their next job. No sooner does this become widespread that new educational degrees are invented to satiate the need for more powerful roles or echelons. I think the only way to curb this craving is to see, again, that the degree itself is only powerful because a few people say it is so. And it is always up to the person whether that degree will accord with people's lives and benefit other, or whether it's a kind of credential that doesn't add much more to the person.
Huxley, Aldous (1945, 1990), The Perennial Philosophy: An Interpretation of the Great Mystics, East and West. New York: Harper.
No comments:
Post a Comment