I’m mulling over how power works–and should work–in the second superpower–and caught between conflicting paradigms. On the one had, there is conventional power–like the power to blast Saddam’s palace yesterday. The second superpower doesn’t have much of that–as I have been forcefully reminded by a number of writers who think I am wildly naive. But I must say that part of me wants us to get some of that–in the sense of working with sympathetic nations, being able to intervene in places like Rwanda or Bosnia to defend human rights, being able to defend rainforest land from poachers and death squads, etc. And so our means of power will develop to be able to force change and protect innocents.
And then others say no, the power of the second superpower lies in its ability to change lives, to heal people, to change hearts and to influence behavior. And we should specialize in that power–perhaps it is not even properly called power–and make that our signal contribution.
And finally, I wonder if it is an either/or? Can’t it be a both/and? I note that most of my contacts who are on the change-of-heart side don’t seem to think it can be both/and.
4 responses so far ↓
Frank Ruscica // Apr 10th 2003 at 12:23 am
Extending the biological metaphor, understanding the nature of power in S2 may equate to identifying S2’s keystone species. In essence, keystones shape what an ecosystem does (while niche species are what it does).
For details, see Keystones and Dominators: Framing the Operational Dynamics of Business Ecosystems, by Harvard Business School professor Marco Iansiti et al.
http://www.hbs.edu/units/tom/seminars02-03/Marco_Nov_2002.pdf
IMHO, prominent among S2’s keystone species will be comedy writers, but details are beyond the scope of this post.
John Abbe // Apr 10th 2003 at 9:35 pm
Power is a tricky one. It’s unavoidable though, nothing exists without it, from atoms to humans to software. I want to be empowered, and to have the power to make a difference. But i don’t want others to have power over me, and i don’t really want to have power over others (when i get it, i end up regretting it). I’d rather have power with others.
So it’s unavoidable as well as desireable for the second superpower to have power, not only for when one is being hit with a stick, but for all the wonderful things in life, to build things and guide the things that grow on their own. I commented earlier about my preference for a minimalistic definition of the second superpower. I started very minimalistic. Then i saw Lee Felsenstein explaining how to have a revolution in three easy steps (Dave Winer linked to it). This is the kind of power with i’m talking about, and i’ll be adding it to my definition.
I learned the term “power with” from Nonviolent Communication (NVC) trainings. I’m asking around to see if that’s where it originated. NVC (aka Compassionate Communication) is one way to learn about exercising power with, in general and even when one is, say, being hit with a stick. I’m ambivalent about whether this philosophy means never resorting to physical force against another. But if it does include that, the important thing to me would be to not lose compassion. People who support physical force because they see no alternative to accomplishing good things suffer only from a failure of imagination (or in my ambivalence, maybe they’re seeing things clearly). People who support war with a glint in their eye and meanness in them about it are suffering much more deeply, and require a big hunka healing to get their heart on straight.
Arms are instruments of ill omen. … When one is compelled to use them, it is best to do so without relish. There is no glory in victory, and to glorify it despite this is to exult in the killing of men. … When great numbers of people are killed, one should weep over them with sorrow. When victorious in war, one should observe mourning rites. –Lao-tzu (ca. 500 B. C.)
But when power with is done well enough, situations where this comes up become quite rare.
Grant M. Henninger // Apr 11th 2003 at 5:07 am
Just wanted to point out my response to this post, incase anybody is interested.
Thomas N. Burg // Apr 11th 2003 at 6:05 pm
This came to my mind: once there was a guy, he sung – then there was the Vietnam war – “They got the guns but we got the numbers”. Though we not only got the numbers we got the (new) media to converse. I guess we are talking ’bout a different paradigm. It’s not about weapons we must believe in the power to influence our closest neighborhood supported by global networks of interest.