[Psychology] Does Power Corrupt?

[Luiglin]

I'd point out that many animals - humans included - have the instinct to seek out others of their kind, to better serve that self-preservation.

I would further argue that self-preservation has little to do with being corrupt or not, and that the "me first" attitude is, in actuality, a deterrent to the self-preservation sought. In tribal animals, the success of the whole enhances the survival of the individuals within. Forgetting this truth - which I fear our society is in danger of doing - would literally result in the destruction of the group, to the detriment of the individuals.

I agree, the pack instinct is strong. I was talking more about the extreme sort of individuals, those that will happily tread on others to get what they want. The sort that would willingly do whatever they can to gain or retain power. There's more than a few where I work.

I was going more with the idea from the OP about power corrupts. These sort would happily accept that corruption once they gained the power in order to retain their position.

 

[Montero]

Just remembered at documentary from a while back, and did a search on the terms and came up with lots of articles on the subclinical psychopath.

Almost Psychopaths in the Workplace

Going back to the company manager concept that gives you two sorts - the ones who can push their staff to the limit and beyond for the good of the company and it hurts them to do so, and the ones who do it and lack the empathy to be hurt by it.

 

[sknox]

I agree, the pack instinct is strong. I was talking more about the extreme sort of individuals, those that will happily tread on others to get what they want. The sort that would willingly do whatever they can to gain or retain power. There's more than a few where I work.

I was going more with the idea from the OP about power corrupts. These sort would happily accept that corruption once they gained the power in order to retain their position.

I might argue that this sort of person was already corrupt. Though I again have to ask what people mean by corruption. It's a pretty broad term. What one person would call corrupt another would call practical.

 

[Luiglin]

I might argue that this sort of person was already corrupt. Though I again have to ask what people mean by corruption. It's a pretty broad term. What one person would call corrupt another would call practical.

I'd say that corrupt is the abuse of the power rather than the use.

 

[Parson]

I'd say that corrupt is the abuse of the power rather than the use.

Of course that also begs the question what is "abuse" of power? If more people are helped but some are hurt badly is this abuse of power? If anyone is hurt is this abuse of power? If the power broker gains is this an abuse of power?

I think ethics is the first question to be answered when abuse is questioned. The old question "Does the end justify the means?" is completely at play here.

 

[Luiglin]

Of course that also begs the question what is "abuse" of power? If more people are helped but some are hurt badly is this abuse of power? If anyone is hurt is this abuse of power? If the power broker gains is this an abuse of power?

I think ethics is the first question to be answered when abuse is questioned. The old question "Does the end justify the means?" is completely at play here.

Interesting point. I'd define 'abuse' in my mind as where the only recepient of any gain is the person themselves.

The end justifying the means is always a good one to use in writing though. How far would a good person go? How far could you explain the justification for whatever act they do and still keep the reader on board? Sometimes this could be used a nice disturbing twist.

 

[Montero]

Interesting point. I'd define 'abuse' in my mind as where the only recepient of any gain is the person themselves.
.

I think there can be abuse when the recipient is taking more than they are supposed to, and others gain, but less than they should have done.

You could then get into the more complicated scenarios of how the person/company/govt is acting - are they abusing a section of society/another country/animals/ecology in order to make their gain. That is wandering into complex ethics, and the term exploitation. Is exploitation an abuse of power? Or if a person is hired to carry out exploitation, are they using their power correctly? (It is still abuse, but they are not misusing the power they were given - they are using it as it was intended to be used by the person hiring them.)

 

[mosaix]

There's a subtle form of corruption in the workplace that isn't immediately obvious.

When someone attains power over others, especially relating to their ability to earn money, people stop telling them that they are wrong, that they make mistakes. Most people become 'yes men'. Consequently powerful people start to think that they are always right. No one ever contradicts them. Their own opinion of themselves is corrupted.

A prime example? Donald Trump (and let's not turn this into a world affairs thread ). As a consequence he is stunned that, having entered into political arena, people (people who aren't dependent on him for their livelihood) are criticizing what he does and says. His psyche can't take it and he lies to himself and everyone else to try and restore some sense of self-worth.

 

[sknox]

True, mosaix, and yet there are a great many supervisors--I have worked for some--who are fair, pleasant and supportive.

I have had many teachers in my career. Most were neither especially good or especially bad, but I did have one who clearly used his position to favor those he favored and block those he did not like. But I set one over against scores and find myself doubting that power has the identical effect on everyone (which is what the aphorism implies). Although I knew the man for only a couple of years, my conclusion was that the man was small and bitter and angry, and that he had been this way for a long time. It was because he was small and bitter and angry that he abused power (was corrupt). The power he held merely conditioned the forms that corruption would take.

I have a neighbor who is paranoid and angry. He rails at everything from the Federal government to the Homeowners Association, but nothing comes of it because he's a nobody. If someone were to hand him power, he would be awful. Because he is powerless, he's merely eccentric. Power is not the cause; power is simply part of the stage upon which we act.

And another thing: I don't like this phrase because it absolves. If power corrupts, then it's not really the person's fault. Power corrupted them. I don't like that view of the world, either as a person or as a writer. So, in case it wasn't clear before (!), I disagree with the proposition.

 

[Perpetual Man]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but as it has been thrown about quite a bit in this thread, and it does seem relevant to some of the things said: the saying is not Power corrupts... as is often misquoted, it is actually Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It removes some of the definite nature of the statement.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I've worked in large companies and been interested to see the impact of the expectation of the company on managers - as in getting managers to get the people they manage to work long hours, longer than is necessarily good for their health whether using the carrot or the stick method. You can see people change as they go higher up the ladder - and if they don't change, in general they don't go higher up. There can be honourable exceptions to this, but I have seen former colleagues who were perfectly reasonable people as colleagues, become guarded, start talking like management text books and be generally moulded into what the company thinks it needs.

But such people don't have power, only the illusion of it, because they are being pressured and manipulated by those higher up, for whom they largely act as intermediaries, doing their dirty work. They are highly paid flunkies, and probably know it to their shame.

Corrupt people seek power for a variety of reasons. but I don't believe it corrupts them further. Rather, it gives them the freedom to act as they might not dare to do if they didn't have the power. The moral rot was already there.

Then there are those who seek power for noble ends. (But it may be hard to sort out those who do so from sincerely held principle from the corrupt sorts who cloak themselves in noble principles they don't believe in at all, as part of the way they manipulate people.) But holding power requires actions that invariably earn enemies. It think it is not power itself that corrupts the well-meaning, but simple fear of what will happen should they lose their power and find themselves at the mercy of those who wish to bring them down.

Because it is fear that causes formerly decent people to do (or to at least condone) terrible things they would be shocked by in other circumstances. So I think the real corrupting influence is a combination of power and fear. A truly courageous person would stick to their original principles and not be distracted by fear of consequences to themselves.

 

[Montero]

Thinking further about it - there is also doing deals to achieve your ends - that's a frequent political one. I'll vote for your bill if you vote for mine. That is generally not corruption in the usual sense of the word, but a politician could well be voting for bills of which they know little, don't care about etc. Providing they don't vote for bills they outright disagree with, then I wouldn't call it corruption. (Though in party politics in the UK, I get the impression a party can require that of its members - its what the party whip is for.) You could write a scenario that someone desperately needs/wants to get a bill through to the benefit of their constituency, so on vote trading votes for a bill that will not affect his constituency and then could see the oppressive effect that has on some people.

Incidentally, earlier in the thread I mentioned sub-clinical psychopathy. No-one has picked up on that. Don't know if that means you've read it or not. I found it very interesting - not talking serial killers here, but people with some of the traits (not all of them) who will never kill, but have some very nasty characteristics which they can keep hidden but are useful in the climb to the top. In terms of writing characters, there are some good pointers in it.

In terms of bosses I've always worked in technical areas, usually pretty expert technical areas, and most of the bosses have been techies who were promoted. Most of them perfectly reasonable people, most of them not entirely happy with being managers but went for it for the pay rise. Have occasionally run into a manager who is technically expert and likes being a manager and is good at it. Have also been in a technical job where a manager was brought in from outside who had no technical knowledge at all - firmly declared it was entirely possible to manage things of which he had no understanding. That didn't work - he left after six months as the job wasn't right for him, he said.

 

[Toby Frost]

Although I knew the man for only a couple of years, my conclusion was that the man was small and bitter and angry, and that he had been this way for a long time.

I think this is a good point. There's a certain smallness of character in a lot of the worst people, which seems to manifest itself as a need to seem great by injuring others, probably because they are incapable of making anything impressive themselves. Virtually all dictators have it (would they be dictators otherwise?) and I expect a lot of serious criminals would do too. The ideal characteristics would seem to include: inflated sense of self-worth, sense of being cheated/bitterness/paranoia, the knowledge that you won't get caught and a lack of a sense of humour. In those circumstances, I'm not sure that power truly corrupts: it's more like it gives the person the opportunity to become what they always threatened to be.

 

[sknox]

It's the line from our great poet, Bob Dylan: [the man who] cares not to come up any higher but rather get you down in the hole that he's in.

 

[Montero]

There is a lot of "taking people down to size" around - sometimes the press do a good job of revealing something of importance that was hidden from the electorate, other times it's "well she might be beautiful but look at her when she hasn't done her hair/was fat at 16" etc, etc.

This is also just one part of the whole - the whole being the impact of power and responsibility on people. The positive side being all those who step up to do something important/impressive - some of them being completely unexpected. So my rambling on this is heading towards some people have a hidden side that being given authority and responsibility bring out, other people do exactly as you'd expect from before they had authority and responsibility. The range of results whether expected or unexpected stretches between behave well or badly, or have a complete melt down as they just can't do it. There are some interesting TV programmes showing people stepping up to a challenge (OK that is generally not power - so it is a personal challenge) - thinking programmes like Faking It.
I guess some of this is the point of going on extreme management courses involving building log bridges and going round commando assault courses - you see who has the melt-down and who steps up - then you hope it has some relevance to the office.......