Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities._
Voltaire, “Questions sur les Miracles” 1765
In the most simplistic of terms, power can be thought of as the ability to change the future, or as Thomas Hobbes argued, the “present means to obtain some future apparent good”.1 It’s one of the fundamental elements that make up the human condition and an inherent concept of politics. Despite countless theories offered throughout history, and staggering amounts of data attempting to predict human trends, the question of power remains incomplete. The uncertainty about the exact nature of causality leaves most of human behavior still indecipherable. Inevitably, these unanswered questions lead one to a branch of philosophy that studies the creation and dissemination of knowledge; epistemology.2 It is through examination of awareness and the nature of human consciousness where we begin to paint a more complete picture of power. This essay argues that there is a direct correlation between awareness level and power; and that power is the ability to act upon another person in a manner contrary to that person’s interests.
To understand the concept of power, we must first know its source. In 1959, social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven developed a schema of sources of power. They claimed power is divided into six separate forms: Coercion, Reward, Legitimacy, Expert, Reference, and Informational.3 Since coercive power, or power by force, has time and time again proven to be unenduring, I do not consider it true power. I posit that true power is sourced in information and is derived from having access to it as well as being in a position to withhold, manipulate, distort, or conceal it. The level of consciousness within a person(s) determines their level of power. Consciousness being defined in a phenomenological sense, as a degree of awareness where the physical world no longer obstructs your understanding.4
The study of human consciousness in relation to power is certainly nothing new. It has been found in historical records of ancient Mayan and Incan civilizations and written in one of the oldest and most profound books in existence, the Tao Te Ching. The ancient Chinese “Book of Tao” is about the nature of the universe, the laws that govern it, and how a person can live in harmony with such laws by having an intuitive understanding of the world. 5 Author Lao Tzu noticed that in nature, an excessive force in a particular direction tends to trigger the growth of an opposing force, and therefore the use of force cannot be the basis for establishing a strong and lasting social foundation.6 This belief is reflected in Sun Tzu’s book of military principles, The Art of War. While it is ultimately a book about war, his ultimate message is centered on the art of not fighting. Sun Tzu’s underlying principle is essentially that of psychological warfare, based on knowing and awareness.7 Like Tzu, the Tao talks about power in relation to knowing, by stating “Knowing others is intelligence; knowing yourself is true wisdom. Mastering others is strength; mastering yourself is true power.”8 Thinker John Locke also made use of consciousness in his theory of personal identity, stating:
[A person] is a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider it self as it self, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it: It being impossible for any one to perceive, without perceiving, that he does perceive.9
Likewise, Marxist theory included the concept of “false consciousness”, in reference to a failure of the members of the subordinate classes, to comprehend the true nature of their oppression.10 While writing about the concept of historical materialism, Friedrich Engels claimed that “ideology is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but with a false consciousness. The real motives impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it would not be an ideological process at all.”11 While I disagree with Marx’s usage of the idea due to his assertion that “true consciousness” is in collective interests, he recognized that perception can be manipulated by the power elite. Through a Marxist lens we can separate US society into economic classes, but if we want to understand who has real power in the United States and thus who can shape ideology (or consciousness) then we must understand not only each classes’ position in a hierarchical structure, but also each classes’ relationship to the state. For example, the establishment media, who is controlled by the US-based international bourgeoisie, has a limited scope of differences from the state establishment that serves the interests of the class which it is a member of.
In 1974, political and social theorist Steven Lukes defined power in terms of what he calls three-dimensional power. In his book, Power: A Radical View, he asserts that this form of power, to operate effectively, requires an acceptance of the status quo because of an accepted underlying ideology. Those who hold power within the system will be accepted by the people, due to the peoples’ belief in the system. In such a situation the preferences of the people can be manipulated to fall into line with the agenda of the rulers.12 Lukes calls his three dimensional view the “supreme and most insidious exercise of power” as it allows rulers to shape the preferences and perception of the masses as well as prevent them from having grievances.13 I believe that this view of power best illustrates the society we live in today.
In the work of Foucault, we find a similar insistence that power is not a state that is to be escaped. Foucault mirrors Lukes in that both theorists insist that power and knowledge are inextricably interwoven, but for Lukes there is an escape. To Foucault, power and knowledge produce one another. He saw knowledge as a means of ‘keeping tabs’ on people and controlling them and argued that the power/knowledge complex cannot be escaped.14 I also agree with Foucault in his argument opposing Marx, that power is not a property or privilege of the dominant class or any other group, but the overall effect of these strategic positions.15 He is one of the few writers on power who recognized that power is not just a negative, coercive, or repressive force that compels us to do things against our wishes, but can also be a necessary, productive, and positive force in society.16 In Discipline and Punish he wrote:
We must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it ‘excludes’, it ‘represses’, it ‘censors’, it ‘abstracts’, it ‘masks’, it ‘conceals’. In fact, power produces; it produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth. The individual and the knowledge that may be gained of him belong to this production17
Lukes originally argued that the third dimension of power consists of deeply rooted forms of political socialization where actors unwittingly follow the dictates of power, even against their best interests.18 His statement was written in the climate of the 1960s. He has since updated his definition of power to include ‘agents’ abilities to bring about significant effects, specifically by furthering their own interests or affecting the interests of others, whether positively or negatively.19 There is plenty of evidence tracing the current methods of such agents to Friedrich Engels idea of false consciousness, starting with the German Communist think tank known as the ‘Frankfurt School’. Prominent member Herbert Marcuse wrote in One-Dimensional Man that “men must come to…find their way from false to true consciousness, from their immediate interests to their real interest.”20 Marcuse was the protégé and former assistant to Nazi philosopher Martin Heidegger.21 (Heidegger happened to be the lover of Jewish thinker Hannah Arendt.)22 In his book Eros and Civilization, Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order, repression is the essence of the order that gives us the person Freud describes as having “all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed.” 23 We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate Eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do you own thing.”24
In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno’s idea of the ‘authoritarian personality.’ This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism.25 The purpose of their strategy coined “Critical Theory” was to convince society to question everything about traditional Western culture, making everything essentially ‘not real’. It is a theory averse to logic, as it imparts what is known as dialectical logic, a concept which attempts to replace formal logic by suggesting content. Truths, facts, or reality is no longer needed for a proposition to be logical.26 The concept also defined what is now considered “Political Correctness”. Marcuse declared that capitalist democracies are innately totalitarian, and therefore a selective or “discriminatory form” of tolerance should be applied to ensure that the opinions of marginalized minorities are recognized. It is perfectly proper, he contended, to silence repressive intolerance (i.e. conservative opinions), in order to protect the rights of minorities. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression should therefore be regulated in order to suppress intolerant conservative views and behavior, and to promote a more fair and equitable society.27 The way in which this is accomplished is through manipulation of words. They knew that language is the main mechanism for transmitting a mode of consciousness, which is why it is frequently used for subconscious manipulation.28 Perhaps the most influential social engineer of that time was Edward Bernays, also known as the father of propaganda. In addition to successfully convincing the American people to support entry into WWI, he basically created consumerism by mastering thought control through emotion. In his book, Propaganda, he writes,
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. 29 “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.”30(emphasis added)
These early techniques of thought manipulation have since advanced greatly and are interwoven throughout virtually every institution of our society. Today, the power elite possess a weaponized, centralized system of mainstream media designed to control all outflow of news and information while circulating mass propaganda and disinformation. One can easily find examples of how subliminal messaging and other subconscious methods are employed by media to create cultural ‘norms’ and social programs through consumerism, materialization of women’s bodies, health choices, and the glorification of violence. The evidence of the power this entails can be attributed to the obesity crisis, anorexia/bulimia, the astronomical amount of consumer debt, the countless legislative acts that have eroded our constitutional rights, and the never-ending “war on terror”. The masses of people whose level of awareness does not allow them to recognize and resist such subversion, are profoundly impacted. We see it today as the predictable outcome of divide and conquer plays out amongst the unaware, in the weakest form of power — violence. However, what you don’t see is participation at that level from the power elite who exist quite comfortably in the third-dimension. The capabilities and exercise of power are continuously evolving, as should the theories that attempt to explain it. One could even argue the third-dimension approach even shifts the definition to “power as domination” through unconscious means. Either way, considering human consciousness as the key to both acquiring power and resisting domination, brings us a lot closer to a semantic analysis of what constitutes power.
A History of Theories of Consciousness. 2017. https://www.boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-t extbook/states-of-consciousness-6/introduction-to-consciousness-41/a-history-of- theories-of-consciousness-177–12712/.
Adorno, Theodor W. The Authoritarian Personality. 1st Ed. New York: Harper, 1950.
Bernays, Edward. Propaganda. New York: H. Liveright, 1928.
Brown, Wendy. “At the Edge: The Future of Political Theory.” Edgework: Critical Essays on Knowledge and Politics (Princeton University), 2005: 60–82.
Engles, Fredreich. Engels to Franz Mehring. 1893. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1893/letters/93_07_14.htm.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. New York: Random House, 1975.
French, J. and Raven, B. “The Bases of Social Power.” Studies in Social Power, 1959.
Gaventa, John. Power after Lukes: a review of the literature.Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2003.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. London: Penquin, 1651.
Laczey, E. Gandhi: A Man for Humanity. New York: Hawthorne, 1972.
Lukes, Steven. Power : A Radical View. 2nd ed. Studies in Sociology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. — . Power : A Radical View. Studies in Sociology. London; New York: Macmillan Press, 1974.
Maier-Katkin, Daniel, and Birgit Maier-Katkin. Love and Reconciliation: The Case of Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger.2007. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27569287.
Marcuse, Herbert. One-Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964.
Marcuse, Herbert. Eros and Civilization. Vintage Books, 1962.
Nimbalkar, Namita. “John Locke on Personal Identity.” Mens Sana Monographs, 20111: 268- 275.
Sawyer, Sun Tzu and Ralph D. The Art of War. New York: Basic Books, 1994.
Steup, Matthias. Epistemology. Dec 14, 2005. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/.
Tzu, Lao. Tao Te Ching. http://classics.mit.edu/Lao/taote.html.
Wolff, Robert Paul., Moore, Barrington, and Marcuse, Herbert. A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Boston: Beacon Press, 1965.
- Leviathan, 1651, Ch.X, p.150 ↩
- Matthias Steup, “Epistemology,” 2005 ↩
- French and Raven, “The Bases of Social Power” ↩
- David Smith, “Phenomenology”, Stanford Encyclopedia ↩
- Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching ↩
- Ibid ↩
- Sun Tzu, The Art of War ↩
- Tao Te Ching, Ch33 ↩
- Namita Nimbalkar, “John Locke on Personal Identity.”, 2011 ↩
- F. Engles, “Engels to Franz Mehring”, 1893 ↩
- Ibid ↩
- S. Lukes, Power: A Radical View, 1974, p23–24 ↩
- Ibid ↩
- M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 1975 ↩
- Wendy Brown, “At the Edge:”, 2005, p60–82 ↩
- John Gaventa, Power after Lukes, 2003, p2 ↩
- Foucault, D&P, p194 ↩
- Lukes, Power: A Radical View, 1974 ↩
- Lukes, Power: A Radical View, 2005 ↩
- Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 1964, ch1 ↩
- H. Marcuse, “An Exchange of Letters”, 1991 ↩
- Daniel Maier-Katkin, “Love and Reconciliation”, 2007 ↩
- H. Marcuse, Eros and Civilization, 1950, p266–267 ↩
- Ibid ↩
- Theodor Adorno, The Authoritarian Personality, 1950 ↩
- Marcuse, “Repressive Tolerance”, 1965 ↩
- Ibid ↩
- Boundless, Theories of consciousness, 2017 ↩
- Edward Bernays, Propaganda, 1928, p37 ↩
- Ibid, p71 ↩
