Power-over vs. Power-with
I've been doing a lot of reading lately which has helped to expand and clarify in my mind what democracy is and can look like in society. It is interesting how we as Americans think we need to export democracy to the rest of the world. I actually think there are some democratic aspects of other cultures which are rarely seen in typical American communities. I even heard one person comment that our founding fathers based much of their concept of democracy on practices they observed within Native American communities.
In my readings one fundamental aspect of democracy is power. Mary Parker Follett wrote about power almost a century ago and explained how power is something we develop from infancy based on our experiences. Basically she believed that we are socialized into the ways we use power. I think I tend to agree.
I can't help but wonder how have we lived on this earth so long and still socialize ourselves into thinking that control based on "power-over" others is best? Is it because it supports our security of living in an individualized society? Is it because it tends to be more efficient? Is it because we are more concerned with getting a product instead of following a good process? Compromise can be used in a "power-over" model, but the concept of compromise can be misleading if we only think of it as producing a positive result. Compromise means that someone will need to give concessions. Whenever humans need to give concesssions, there is no true peace as the one who conceeded usually begrudges the compromise. Agreements to compromise are often power driven. Another aspect of power-over models is that they are often fear-based. America certainly utilizes fear-based, power-over control in the world. This dominant paradigm is based on an "either/or" way of thinking. Everything is or will be either this way or that way. You are on our side or theirs. There is no room for middle ground or integration of views. Isolation or individualism is valued in this model.
Another way to utilize power is in a "power-with" approach. This can be contrasted with the "either/or" paradigm by saying this form of power looks for ways to creatively integrate or blend ideas and resources to create something new (different from compromise). This "both/and" paradigm seems to be a new concept to many Americans. In this model people are willing to look for and work toward common goals and are not so concerned with an efficient means to an end, but rather a good one ... good process. This way recognizes the human-to-human and human-to-environment interdependence and interrelatedness in the world. It values the potential power of all people and roles involved. It empowers because it sees the sum of powers as something good, potential for good change. It looks for ways to not necessarily balance power (meaning equal amounts), but rather create a functional unity by people having the amount of power appropriate for their function so that the community can work well together. Those with more power give opportunity to those with less to gather more experience which, in turn, increases their power. Community harmony is valued in this model.
I heard some Christians critique the second model as being too humanistic or based on secular morality. Those comments made me realize that, at least in reacent years, I have been socialized within in a unique Christian setting where the second model is not foreign to me. In fact it fits very well with my personal convictions of how we lead people and how we treat others. After further discussion, those same Christians did say, however, that the second model does a better job of following Jesus' command to love others as yourself or our Golden Rule version, "treat others as you would want to be treated."
But the truth is, I was not socialized to use power in this way from infancy! In fact I wish I would do as good a job at the second model in my home as I do in a workplace! I can see that we are products of years and years of training and often training ends up being context specific. Unfortunately my training at homelife as a child was not so based on democracy. Thus, I have a hard time implementing such ideas in that context. But knowing I struggle with it has made me think a lot harder about what concept of power I want to pass on to my children. Habits are hard to break and the "power-over" model, they say, can be quite addictive. What a scary thought! So I wonder, when it comes to power ... what kind of a person am I, really????
In my readings one fundamental aspect of democracy is power. Mary Parker Follett wrote about power almost a century ago and explained how power is something we develop from infancy based on our experiences. Basically she believed that we are socialized into the ways we use power. I think I tend to agree.
I can't help but wonder how have we lived on this earth so long and still socialize ourselves into thinking that control based on "power-over" others is best? Is it because it supports our security of living in an individualized society? Is it because it tends to be more efficient? Is it because we are more concerned with getting a product instead of following a good process? Compromise can be used in a "power-over" model, but the concept of compromise can be misleading if we only think of it as producing a positive result. Compromise means that someone will need to give concessions. Whenever humans need to give concesssions, there is no true peace as the one who conceeded usually begrudges the compromise. Agreements to compromise are often power driven. Another aspect of power-over models is that they are often fear-based. America certainly utilizes fear-based, power-over control in the world. This dominant paradigm is based on an "either/or" way of thinking. Everything is or will be either this way or that way. You are on our side or theirs. There is no room for middle ground or integration of views. Isolation or individualism is valued in this model.
Another way to utilize power is in a "power-with" approach. This can be contrasted with the "either/or" paradigm by saying this form of power looks for ways to creatively integrate or blend ideas and resources to create something new (different from compromise). This "both/and" paradigm seems to be a new concept to many Americans. In this model people are willing to look for and work toward common goals and are not so concerned with an efficient means to an end, but rather a good one ... good process. This way recognizes the human-to-human and human-to-environment interdependence and interrelatedness in the world. It values the potential power of all people and roles involved. It empowers because it sees the sum of powers as something good, potential for good change. It looks for ways to not necessarily balance power (meaning equal amounts), but rather create a functional unity by people having the amount of power appropriate for their function so that the community can work well together. Those with more power give opportunity to those with less to gather more experience which, in turn, increases their power. Community harmony is valued in this model.
I heard some Christians critique the second model as being too humanistic or based on secular morality. Those comments made me realize that, at least in reacent years, I have been socialized within in a unique Christian setting where the second model is not foreign to me. In fact it fits very well with my personal convictions of how we lead people and how we treat others. After further discussion, those same Christians did say, however, that the second model does a better job of following Jesus' command to love others as yourself or our Golden Rule version, "treat others as you would want to be treated."
But the truth is, I was not socialized to use power in this way from infancy! In fact I wish I would do as good a job at the second model in my home as I do in a workplace! I can see that we are products of years and years of training and often training ends up being context specific. Unfortunately my training at homelife as a child was not so based on democracy. Thus, I have a hard time implementing such ideas in that context. But knowing I struggle with it has made me think a lot harder about what concept of power I want to pass on to my children. Habits are hard to break and the "power-over" model, they say, can be quite addictive. What a scary thought! So I wonder, when it comes to power ... what kind of a person am I, really????
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home