Is power even worth seeking?

Question

In my previous question http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ah7Sjvug1Fo99tfzOkZHnx3sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20080811211210AA68Jnj we were discussing various forms of female and male power and many were quick to point out that female reproductive and sexual power is dependent on a male, which is true.

What's interesting is that all power seems to be dependent on others. For a man to have power as the head of his household, he depends on a woman to merge with him to create a family. No woman, no family, no power over a family. Even political leaders understand this. Their power depends on the people they rule over. No people, no power.

If all social power in contingent on others to validate it and to make it real, is is even worth fighting for or arguing over?

It seems that there is a drive in people, that is more pronounced (for whatever reason) among males, to seek power, but if power is inherently nothing without the respectively "powerless" does that not mean that the "powerless" are the true seat of power?

What does this do for gender dynamics?

Answer 1

Yeah...  Foucault...  It's not just about having power, it's about how power is exercised and applied.  

There's a transcript of a really interesting discussion between Foucault and Deleuze, and it deals with these ideas and others:

http://libcom.org/library/intellectuals-...

Answer 2

As a modern Feminist I don't even need to seek power because only modern Feminists have the innate ability to understand our inherent beauty and power.

So much oppression at the hands of men, so difficult to cope with.

Answer 3

One's power goes only as far as the people behind it or that follow or support. After all we have seen dictators, overhauled, presidents impeached when people have enought with the tyranny and took matters into their own hands. After all, without followers or supporters, you are just a single man or woman, without attention from others' one's power is unnoticed and unutilized. Having the tools doesn;t matter if a person don't have foundation to stand upon or a foundation to govern.

The only thing thought is, this generally applies, except for corrupt power from dicatorships and tyranny, which people are forced to submit or else be killed and tortured and this can apply unfortunately for a man who is a dirtag and asserts his dominance or tries to force submission from his wife from violence or threats of violence, in which she would resist if she wasn;t worried about her physical well being, and some women who have such a low self esteem from the abuse and keep coming back instead of leaving the dirtbag behind.

Not4this had some good points too.

To Ryan: The rules wouldn;t matter if the people didn't abide by them. This is also excluding the use of force too though, which some countries unfortunately do use force and violence and threats for citizens who do not obey rules even if they are against freedoms. Yes there are rules, but then again even top officials have to abide by such rules as well if they are deemed unconstitutional, whereas, other countries that use violence and force upon people may exlude government officials from being punished for what regular citizens could be punished for or such exclusion. I get what you are saying, but I would almost go with that, but I think your thought is more on the surfacr as far as power, whereas, I also understand the girl's view of power relationship, which is in a deep, philosophical sense, probably an argument that aristotle has pondered I believe and wrote, but I can't remember or recall his writings now.

Who the heck is the dummy that just sweeps through giving everyone thumbs downs? This has happened to the last question posted by this girl, where someone swept across giving thumbs downs to everyone within the same period.

Answer 4

The powerful set the rules to the game. The powerless have to follow the ideals of the powerful. What this does for interactions is create a hierarchy. To the victors go the spoils. This is why people fight for power.

Answer 5

I don't understand why you feel it's not worth fighting for.  

Answer 6

Power is security, you can never have enough security. That's why Empires are made.  

Answer 7

To answer your question: No, power's not worth seeking. The higher above you are, the more worries you encounter. Power drives a destructive circle:

1) From powerless to power: sacrifice of many others to get to the top.

2) To maintain power status: maintain as many powerless people as possible, and eliminate ones who come close to compete for power.

3) Once power's lost: one would seek every chance for vengeance and get back to top.

It's completely pointless.

So why many people (mostly men and some women) seek the dominance?

1) To reflect on one's powerless past. One has been stepped on all through one's life. Achieve power will get one away from further misery.

2) To prevent the rise of those who they discriminate. They find pleasures dominating ones that they dislike.

3) To overcome the flaws that they have. To earn respect by proving he/she is better than all others. To avenge for a mistreated past.

There are many other reasons... which I find them all pretty pointless.

Answer 8

I wonder if Newton's First Law of Motion comes into this.

NOT THAT I'M SAYING THAT IT CAN BE USED AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR POWER WHEN IT'S ABUSED!!!!

In terms of whether or not it's worth fighting over, from the raw perspective of which you speak, no. But from a social perspective, the presence of consent and the absence of abuse play integral parts.

But I think you're talking about it from a raw perspective :-)

(or maybe I've had too many meds for this migraine ;-))

Answer 9

Depends why you seek power. If it is for selfish purposes then it is a waste.

     If it is for selfless purposes to assist others than it might have merit. But to use "power" is to use force, and force is violent even if it is only mental violence to compel others to do as the person wielding it thinks best.

    That is why you should never trust those that ask for power or demand it.

Answer 10

I think true power lies in not needing others to validate who you are within the societal defined parameters of what success entails.  

The power you speak of usually comes with greed, coldness, and plenty of ethical violations.

Accepting and being content with oneself without formulating material attachments and having the necessity to meet the status quo by keeping up with the Joneses is a very powerful way to live.

Check out Buddahism maybe.

I don't think I am in your intellectual ball park, but wanted to offer what I can.

Answer 11

You've just made a foundationalist fallacy. What draws on something for its foundation does not mean it is meaningless, but rather it relies on that to give it a foundation. Basically you made a false transition

Think of it this way even though our perception of good relies upon our perception of evil does that mean that which we think is good is in fact meaningless and we should not seek it?

In the end though, like all beliefs, individuals choose whether they want to seek power or good.. if it ends up that many choose to do so then a consensus is reached and that belief while relying upon everyone who holds it, is still a valid belief

edit: yea the term foundationalist fallacy is not recognised but I'll explain what I mean. Foundationalists believe that concepts are based upon something more fundamental right.

Your argument is essentially in line with that thinking insofar as you stated that there is no foundation based on power not having fundamental foundations.

This is illogical, the transition is illogical sorry not false. Excuse me :)

That's because many beliefs don't have more fundamental foundations but are still perfectly valid i.e. they rely on perception and they are contingent. Gender and racial equality for a start



It's fine to question beliefs since some could be invalid but deconstructing power as a concept relies upon deconstructing society since as you so aptly put that is its foundation.

Yet as far as the powerless are needed to make the powerful, power is sought by both it seems..

Answer 12

You are smart!  Yes, here is something I read:

"It is not in the end the prisoners who are destroyed, even though they may lose their lives.

It is the jailors...It is the oppressors who are doomed..."

Harrison E. Salisbury, The New York Time Book Review in discussing the book "The First Circle" by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitzsyn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_S...

As for gender dynamics, it equates to those who have power will be corrupted by it.  Both men and women in power will HURT innocents.  Plato's "Republic" says something similiar.