It's All Power, All the Time

Recently I had a discussion about Kanye's interview with David Letterman concerning Kanye's "maximum expression of self" concept. I shared that it was rooted in power. That provoked some pushback because power has a bad connotation - an unfortunate aspect of the current times.

Power is what we are after. It's a manifestation of the reactive and diminished thoughtfulness of today's environment that power is bad but empowerment is good; that police are bad, but policing is good. If empowerment does not lead to more power, then what does the word mean? If more power is not good, how can empowerment be good? (Of course, empowerment does indicate a connection and a larger sense of self. But that is the essence of power - two are always more powerful than one.)

In a parallel way, I noticed that Oedipus Tyrannos is the name of Sophocle's play. Tyrannos translates to the English cognate of "tyrant." But in fact the Greek meaning of the word did not connote abuse or cruelty as it does for us today. Instead, it simply indicated someone that did not gain rule through heredity - more of the "self-made person" idea.

In Spinoza's framework, the Latin language has two words for power: potentia and potestas. Potentia is relatable to its English cognate of potential as virtual power or energy. It's similar to an untapped resource. Of course that sense of power is always good and there is an aspect in which empowerment is about resourcing those who lack resources. 

But potestas as in manifest power is what's gotten the bad name. My high school English teacher had an aversion to potestas when he quoted, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In some ways, this journey of the word tyrannos from "self-made ruler" to "cruel and abusive ruler." The increased focus on historical misuses of power has similarly given power as potestas a bad name. There is some inevitability here.

To have "maximum expression of self" means that one expands limits. In most situations, this maximization of self-expression comes at a cost to someone or something else. There are rare situations, like exercise or meditation, which don't compete for limited resources. But in addition to an attempt to expand self-expression, there is an attempt to at least maintain power. This, too, is inevitably a failure as attempts to maintain power become attempts to thwart the emerging power of others (by say innovation or competition).

In the corporate world there is always a journey from doing things for the customer to doing things to the customer. This is not sinister, but is a manifestation of the same power dynamic. At some initial period, a corporation expresses potentia and emerge to meet an unmet need. For example, look at Google's quick and powerful emergence. However, once that emergence has occurred, potestas is present. Now the phase of doing to the customers emerges in attempts to maintain and expand that power. 

Jeff Bezos identified this as he attempted to focus on Amazon always considering his business on Day 1. On Day 1 for any business, the mission is clear - delight the customer by exceeding expectations. By making the virtual idea of pleasing others a reality of exceeding expectations, potentia is shaped beautifully into potestas.

This is a natural cycle for individuals as well as corporations. Calling power a bad thing is inaccurate and inevitably leads to blind spots in self-management and social policy. Instead, accepting as reality the dynamics of power leads to frameworks which facilitate power in an organic cycles of change. As Spinoza posits, "reality and perfection are the same thing."