Relationship between power and fear

relationship between power and fear

The present investigation examines subtypes of bullies, distinguished on the basis of social power, some of whom fit the traditional characterization of bullies as. Free Essay: MLA Research Paper Savagery, Power And Fear And how it's ties in with Lord Of The Flies Young children who are left unattended will slowly loose. I believe there is a correlation between fear and the amount of power people seek. An individual's motivation for power is to acquire control.

With whom, and under what circumstances, does it seem to fade - or be taken from you? It might be worthwhile to write down some notes on this, and review these questions often as you go through the book. Whatever definition of power we choose, it is still a choice - which means there's also a twist attached to that choice. As with all other definitions, how our choice of how we define 'power' also determines how we perceive it - and how we experience it. For example, there's the so-called 'common-sense' notion that power is a kind of limited and rare commodity: If that's how power is perceived, all transactions between people are described in terms of a 'zero-sum' of power - the old Marxist concept that "it is in the nature of power that it is impossible for one to have more without others having less" - and hence all relationships are viewed in terms of 'win-lose'.

If that's what I believe, then I'll also believe that the only way I can win is to make sure that you lose. So if you hold the same concept of power, we're set for a life-time of struggle In what ways is it not true?

relationship between power and fear

Is there a difference in the meaning of 'power' in each case? Or is it more a difference in what you - or others - choose to perceive as 'power'?

How do you relate with someone who regards that definition of power as true - someone who constantly attempts to prop themselves up by putting others down? In what ways, and under what circumstances, do you attempt to prop yourself up by putting others down? How do others relate with you when you do this? The twist in 'win-lose' is that since everyone's energy is expended on struggling to be 'the winner' - and especially in trying to avoid being 'the loser' - nobody ever really 'wins': Since one of the most popular means of gaining 'power' is to manufacture fear in one sense or another, it's all too true that "where there's fear, there's power; where there's power, there's fear".

But the supposed 'winner's feeling of having gained power over others masks the reality that everyone loses - and in practice, even the most definite 'final victory' can be very short-lived Each concept of power is a thread of the wyrd: So we can change our experience of power - and other people's experience of power, when in relationship with us - simply by changing the way we choose to perceive it.

If we perceive power as a fixed commodity, that's what it'll be; if we treat every relationship as a 'zero-sum', that's what we'll have. And if, as the slogan for one of the 'Godfather' films put it, we base our life on the notion that "true power cannot be given - it must be taken", we will, in the usual weird way, find plenty of people who are willing to play: In a very real sense it is true that "life doesn't have to be struggle" - and that if it is a struggle for us, it's probable that our past and present choices have helped to make it so.

There's always a choice, there's always a twist: So we can choose, for example, to perceive power not as a finite commodity, but as something which is variable and volatile, something which is created - or destroyed - by us, or in the space between us. Power - or the lack of it - depends on us, and how we relate with each other.

Power And Fear

In this sense, when people relate with each other, there's a whole spectrum of power-transactions from 'win-win' to 'lose-lose'; in this sense, 'win-lose' is just an odd type of 'lose-lose', in which the illusion of gaining at one level masks an overall loss at another.

The constant 'win-lose' battles for power-over and power-under - manipulation, deceit and so on - are replaced by stronger need for power with others to help us find, and share, a deeper and more personal kind of power-from-within. The struggles still exist, in a sense: The 'power-games' of power-over and power-under are probably all too familiar: In what ways does this kind of power feel different from power-over and power-under?

What difference does it make to your own sense of power - your own power-from-within? With whom, and under what circumstances, does this sense of power-with arise? Even if - or perhaps even because - this concept of power-with seems alien to you, experiment with it for a while.

Assume that in every interaction with others, it's always in part your choice as to whether it will be 'win-win', 'lose-lose', or the illusory 'win-lose' - and that you always have that choice.

What difference does this make to the way you perceive those others? What difference does this make to the way they interact with you? If, in some weird way, you find yourself interacting with different people, in what ways are they different from the type of people you meet when you assume that 'power cannot be given - it can only be taken'? Despite the damage it causes, 'win-lose' can sometimes seem easier than the constant search for constructive solutions that 'win-win' demands What's the difference in what 'win-win' asks from you?

This description also matches more closely with the physics definition of power, where 'power' - or, more accurately, 'potential' - is "the ability to do work". In 'win-lose', by comparison, power often seems more like "the ability to avoid work" - which is probably why so little actually gets done!

relationship between power and fear

That bald physics definition, though, applies mainly to machines, which work in only one way, and which have no choice in what they do. By the time we apply it to people, we'd have to expand that physics definition somewhat: This may take a bit of explaining First, power may be the ability to do work, but work itself is not power: If the work is not done by choice, there is no power: In practice, that's what 'win-lose' is really about: There's an odd sense in which power and time interweave: So does time seem to go by faster when you're doing what you want to do, or when you're doing what you don't want to do?

Next, it's essential to understand that the meaning of 'work' is entirely open: In physics, 'work' is defined as "the rate at which energy is expended": But they're different kinds of energy: Even in physics, there are different types of energy - electromagnetic, gravity, weak nuclear, strong nuclear - which interact with each other and in some ways change into each other; in the same way, those different kinds of human energy interact with each other and in some ways change into each other - they change through us, as an expression of our choices.

Our power exists through the work we choose to do, in whatever form we choose. We each have our own choices in the wyrd, our own preferred ways of working in the world: Do you find it easier working with machines than with people, perhaps? Do you prefer the challenge of a technical problem to the challenge of keeping the house tidy and clean?

Would you rather face the rigours of a mountain-climb than face the rigours of exploring your own sense of self?

Although you'll find some forms of work easier than others, we all have to do most of them at some time - especially the mundane tasks like tax forms and the weekly washing. Where do you find your own power in these other forms of work?

Fear: The Foundation of Every Government’s Power: Independent Institute

The last point is perhaps the hardest: Children don't distinguish between them: It's in children's play that they develop their many skills, and come to understand their own 'ability to do work, as an expression of choice'. But by the time we get to adulthood, somewhere the idea creeps in that work isn't supposed to be enjoyable, isn't supposed to be meaningful to us, whereas what we still call 'play-time' is: If we're doing work that has no meaning to us, no purpose in itself, we're not exactly likely to feel powerful about it What, to you, is 'play'?

What form - if any - does your own sense of power take in each of these? Do 'work' and 'play' ever coincide, as far as you're concerned? If so, how, and in what way? And who are you with, when - or if - they coincide? If so, how can you create a sense of being powerful at work? And in those times when work does seem also like play - especially with others - what happens to how you feel about your work?

Yet in its own weird way this attitude to work is just as much of a choice as is the notion of 'win-lose' - and with much the same results. In terms of the wyrd, if we choose to view work as boring, disempowering, something we have to do in order to pay for what we really want to do And just as with 'win-lose', we're likely to meet up with people who'll help to reinforce that choice.

We can choose to view work in a different way: Yet if we do that, we'll find there are people who'll help to reinforce that choice, too. Thus did the welfare state anchor its rationale in the solid rock of fear.

Thus, it cannot escape the law of diminishing marginal productivity: The first time the government cries wolf, the public is frightened; the second time, less so; the third time, still less so.

Fear is a depreciating asset. Unless the foretold threat eventuates, the people come to doubt its substance.

The government must make up for the depreciation by investing in the maintenance, modernization, and replacement of its stock of fear capital. This same factor helps to explain the drumbeat of fears pounded out by the mass media: Left alone for a while, relieved of this ceaseless bombardment of warnings, people would soon come to understand that hardly any of the announced threats has any substance and that they can manage their own affairs quite well without the security-related regimentation and tax-extortion the government seeks to justify.

True government employment is much greater than officially reported [Light ; Higgs a]. Defense contractors, of course, have long devoted themselves to stoking fears of enemies big and small around the globe who allegedly seek to crush our way of life at the earliest opportunity. All such reports agree, however, that a crisis looms and that more such studies must be made in preparation for dealing with it.

At every point, opportunists latch onto existing fears and strive to invent new ones to feather their own nests. In this way and countless others, private parties become complicit in sustaining a vast government apparatus fueled by fear. Fear Works Best in Wartime Even absolute monarchs can get bored.

Soulful Power: The Inter-Relationship Between Breath, Anxiety and Fear

In wartime, however, rulers come alive. Nothing equals war as an opportunity for greatness and public acclaim, as all such leaders understand Higgs Condemned to spend their time in high office during peacetime, they are necessarily condemned to go down in history as mediocrities at best.

Upon the outbreak of war, however, the exhilaration of the hour spreads through the entire governing apparatus. Army officers who had languished for years at the rank of captain may now anticipate becoming colonels. Powerful new control agencies must be created and staffed. New facilities must be built, furnished, and operated. Politicians who had found themselves frozen in partisan gridlock can now expect that the torrent of money gushing from the public treasury will grease the wheels for putting together humongous legislative deals undreamt of in the past.

Balancing power When power is imbalanced, then this can be rebalanced in a number of ways. One way is to gain representation, which is one thing that trade unions seek to do. You can also use formal or informal mentoring from those who are more sympathetic towards you and who can converse as equals with a person in power who may be causing fear and distrust. The principle is to give more decisional power to people lower down the company tree, reducing the need to ask permission or gain approval for the use of resources.

Appreciating humanity A simple method is to show a basic respect for the other person. An easy way to do this is to get to know them as a person. Learn about their family life, their interests and fears.

This may be done through formal meetings, which is a method that a mediator might use. It can also be done through chatting at the coffee machine and other informal settings. Saying hello and smiling in the corridor helps. Sitting nearby also has a big effect if interactions are friendly.