[Vulnerability & Power - XV]
Social or political power is easy to define: it’s the ability to direct or influence someone, a group, or the course of events. The primary reward of (this kind of) power is control. Power by definition is power-over. Power names the imbalance of influence, whereby one party or person is dominant and the other subordinate.
The tactics of power vary, some direct action and others indirect. Economic interference or war come to mind for the former; threats or intimidation come to mind for the latter.
But what if (true) power is not measured by a scale that tilts one way or the other, but instead is measured by the balance of the scale? This might be called mutual-power or power-sharing. Or even further, what if power was measured by the ability to divest influence, give away control, and empower others—a type of power-under?
This is not a far-fetched idea at all. Any loving relationship, though we might not use the word “power”, works precisely because an alternative understanding of power is employed. The success of a marriage is not measured by dominance but by loving care of the other over years of power divestment and the balancing of the scale of influence.
The lie is that this kind of power-under can’t work anywhere else; it’s too vulnerable for public use.
Perhaps the problem is not that shared power must remain private, but instead that we’ve created a public life devoid of vulnerability. Without risking vulnerability in public life, social spaces, political discourse and decision making, and in the cultural imagination in general, we will continue to operate on the assumption that my position of power demands your position of weakness. Any other consideration is a threat to my (real or perceived) dominance.
This is not real (ie good, healthy, sustainable) power. This is false (ie dark, unholy) power. It’s time to name it what it actually is.
