Kristor writes:

The contrast you drew here between the adversarial concept of human relations exemplified in what Maggie Fox has written, versus the Christian notion that human relations are founded upon love, got me thinking. All the talk of egalitarianism emanating from the left side of the aisle – and, nowadays, from most of the right side of the aisle, too – presupposes that power and authority are necessarily, automatically wielded not in love and self-giving sacrifice, but in self-seeking use of others as means to ends.Egalitarianism begins from the assumption that if I have more power than my fellows, I will abuse them, ipso facto.; and that I may therefore be counted upon, whatever my station in life, to use all the power at my disposal in service of my own ends, treating all others as mere means – including my spouse, and my children.

But exploitation of others is not the basic form of human relations, it is a derogation and a corruption of that form. The basic form of human relations is love. We like to be with each other. Without our enjoyment of each other, without our love for each other, there would be no society; and without society, social power would be null and void. Power, then, and authority, are first power and authority to love. Only when a man has been corrupted by sin and wickedness will he use his power for ill. Not that this is uncommon; but the fault is with the man, not with the power he has qua man, or qua husband, or qua father.

So Acton was wrong: power itself does not itself corrupt. It is a faculty of being. Ontologically, power is just creative agency: the capacity to work. Great social power is the recognition by society that a person is endowed with peculiarly great and suasive (or, at least, important) creative agency, of one kind or another (of, e.g., Yo Yo Ma, or of Tiger Woods, or of Barack Obama, or of Steve Jobs). Everyone has some power, and therefore deserves some minimal degree of respect, deserves our common recognition of his authority as a mere human being, that can be eradicated only with his death. In this lies the basic and inherent dignity of all men, a notion that informed the Founding Fathers in establishing our Republic. The basic dignity of all men is exactly equal, for it consists in their existence as men, and is given with their humanity.

As it is incorrect to say that power corrupts, it is incorrect to say that money is the root of all evil. It is not money that is the root of evil, but the love of money. Likewise also with power; it is not power that corrupts, but the love of power. Power does not corrupt, nor money, nor sex, nor any of the other goods with which we have been endowed. These represent the body of goodness, that is subject either to heath or illness, depending upon how we behave. The exploitation of our fellows is a corruption of our power. It is corruption that corrupts.

So egalitarianism is founded upon a mistaken view of human relations. Humans don’t naturally hate and exploit each other. They naturally love and cherish each other. Even their errors are generally motivated by love and good will. We are almost all of us trying to be good. This is as true of fathers, husbands, kings and priests, as it is of anyone else. Egalitarianism misses this basic fact.

Laura writes:

You say, “Power, then, and authority, are first power and authority to love. Only when a man has been corrupted by sin and wickedness will he use his power for ill. Not that this is uncommon; but the fault is with the man, not with the power he has qua man, or qua husband, or qua father.” [emphasis mine] 

“It is not power that corrupts, but the love of power.” 

You show the emptiness and cynicism behind the frequent quoting of Acton’s line, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” 

However, it is also true that outside the boundaries of natural distinctions, when authority is in the wrong hands, that power itself corrupts. When a child assumes authority over a parent, and rules the parent, then the role itself corrupts. When women hold presumptive authority over men in public affairs this corrupts something fundamental to their relationship and in society. When voting power is given to 18-year-olds, it doesn’t matter what their intentions or love for their country. Their power violates an inherent lack of authority. It corrupts in the sense that it destroys deference for experience. 

You say, “Ontologically, power is just creative agency: the capacity to work. Great social power is the recognition by society that a person is endowed with peculiarly great and suasive (or, at least, important) creative agency, of one kind or another ..” 

Power refers to creative agency but the materials are other human beings. It is the capacity to work, but through authority over others. 

How can any society function when the idea that “power corrupts” becomes a living creed? The truth is, no society ever has. The Bolsheviks thought power corrupts, but that it only corrupts Tsarists. The sans-culottes believed power corrupts, but only monarchists and the nobility. This is a motto applied selectively. Male power is considered self-seeking today. It is male power that is held in suspicion. This is evident from Maggie Fox’s statement about her husband. She did not simply acknowledge that some men abuse their power as financial providers, but essentially said that this power is so corrupting it should never be granted. She did not say her own power over her employees as a manager rendered the role of manager itself illegitimate. Single mothers wield enormous power in the domestic realm and yet their authority is not held in suspicion. I’m not saying it should be held in suspicion, but the fact is, it is is not even viewed as a form of power. Female power is invisible, presumed innocent, if not incorruptible, as is obvious in this recent statement by Hillary Clinton. The goal of elevating women in equal numbers to positions of high status, as CEO’s and priests, holds out the utopian promise of soft power, the power that hurts no one and pleases all. A woman at the helm represents caring and nurturance. 

Many would disagree with your statement, “exploitation of others is not the basic form of human relations, it is a derogation and a corruption of that form. The basic form of human relations is love.” Self-interest is part of all human relations. But, if one looks at the opportunities for abusing power, the opportunities for parents to wield excessive power over children, of husbands over wives, of wives over husbands, exploitation, though common, is the exception not the norm. To assume excessive self-regard is inherent in all relations makes trust impossible, but as I said above this is an assumption we never really make. If we are going to assume exploitation, it is a question of whose power we are going to distrust not of distrusting all power. That’s how fundamental some degree of trust in power is.

Kristor replies:

You make a good distinction between power that flows from real authority – which is to say, from concretely achieved virtue, in the ancient Greek sense of that word, as connoting the full and true expression by a being of those beauties given by its nature – and power that has been wrested from those who have such authority and bestowed upon those who do not. Power thus perverted is ipso facto corrupt. If we were to impose physical handicaps on Tiger Woods so that lesser golfers could more often succeed against him, so as to make the competition more egalitarian, not only would his athletic virtue be wounded, so likewise would the moral virtue of his competitors, thus ruining golf. Who cares about a rigged contest? 

Power is not different from the other goods of life when they are likewise perverted from their true and rightful course. Sex, money, food, clothing, buildings: all are ruined, and work ruination, when they are made to disagree with nature. And nature abhors perversion. Build a house, or a family, in contravention to the way things are meant to work simply by virtue of what they are – in Chinese the Tao, the Way of Heaven, in Greek the Logos, in Sanskrit rta, order – and that Way, more or less faithfully expressed in all the things of the world (thereby vouchsafing us a coherent world in the first place), will work through them systematically to erode and decay it. Whitehead said, “the instability of evil is the morality of the universe.” 

Perversion is of course endemic in human life, especially these days. Sport is almost the only domain of our social life where we still forthrightly honor excellence – this is why we are so offended by cheaters, and by steroids. That our true natures are so often contravened by our social arrangements results in no end of corrupted power, and therefore of abuse, loss, heartbreak and disaster. We were better off under traditional social arrangements, which are better fitted to what we are, and to the world. Not that traditional arrangements would make everything all nice. Of course they would not, for man is fallen. Plenty of fathers, even in the healthiest and most traditional patriarchy, would be abusive (albeit, I make no doubt, far fewer than we in our modern Enlightened age seem now to suffer). But to throw out patriarchy because some fathers are tyrannical and abusive is like solving the problem of automobile accidents by getting rid of cars altogether.

I hesitate to criticize Lord Acton, whom I have always admired. I wager that his “power corrupts” is uprooted from a text that frames it in much the same way we have done. I shall have to look that up.

Laura writes:

It is the facile use of his line that is objectionable.

“Not that traditional arrangements would make everything all nice. Of course they would not, for man is fallen. Plenty of fathers, even in the healthiest and most traditional patriarchy, would be abusive (albeit, I make no doubt, far fewer than we in our modern Enlightened age seem now to suffer). But to throw out patriarchy because some fathers are tyrannical and abusive is like solving the problem of automobile accidents by getting rid of cars altogether.”

Traditional arrangements spell unhappiness for some. There’s no avoiding this glaring truth.

How best to think of these unfortunates? They are martyrs to the cause of virtue and order. Many people used to tacitly understand this idea. Many put up with thoroughly unhappy marriages. They consoled themselves with the thought that they were doing the right thing.

Kristor writes:

Yes, absolutely. You can’t have a coherent and orderly world that realizes all possible goods. Choices must be made, and so creaturely existence entails disappointment and pain. Egalitarians and other gnostics would have it otherwise, but life is inherently tragic. It always ends badly. Tragedy is the highest form of drama because it enables us to reconcile ourselves viscerally to this truth, and to apprehend and enjoy the beauty that life also nevertheless provides, not just despite tragedy, but in and through it. As Lear eventually triumphed, so may we. 

The Liturgy of the Mass is a dramatic re-enactment – a re-actualization – of the central tragedy of existence. Through that tragedy, we are reconciled to the Logos, whose inexorable logic forces our tragic choices by making them possible in the first place. It is the Logos himself, subject with us to the logic of the real, who reconciles us to himself. Thus only may we live. As Christ triumphs, so eventually may we.

Please follow and like us: