Julian Reichelt, Till Lindemann, your own ex-boss – most people can immediately name cases in which a person abused their position of power. Why is that? And why do some people use power more responsibly than others? We spoke to experts about this.
People can accomplish wonderful things when they cooperate with one another: raise children, survive life-threatening seasons, develop complex language systems, build roads, form work communities in which everyone can take vacations and recover from illness. Working together and supporting each other pays off in many cases, which is why it is generally an obvious behavior for us.
However, interest in cooperation with other species is obviously not the only force that influences people’s interactions with one another. We experience and know more than enough examples from history in which people (groups) fought, oppressed and abused each other. In addition to warfare, proselytizing or violent crimes, an uncooperative behavior pattern that has repeatedly attracted attention, particularly in recent years, is the so-called abuse of power: A person in their position of power exploits other people to their detriment or harm.
After numerous cases of abuse of power became public in the wake of the MeToo movement, the most prominent German examples from this year can be broken down into two names: Julian Reichelt and Till Lindemann. Both men are said to have used their power to force sexual relations with women. However, these are just the most prominent examples of a common phenomenon. Whether at work, school, religious community, partnership or family, in everyday life we can observe abuse of power in all kinds of relationships and sizes.
This in turn raises questions: Why do some people use power responsibly, but others don’t? What conditions promote abuse of power? Can power change a person’s character? What would be an appropriate use of power and what is necessary to promote or even ensure it? We spoke about this with the psychiatrist Professor Doctor Borwin Bandelow and with the social philosopher Isette Schuhmacher.
What exactly is power?
“In philosophy, we distinguish conceptually at least three understandings of power, ‘power to’, ‘power over’ and ‘power with’,” says Isette Schuhmacher, research associate at the Center for Social Critique at Humboldt University in Berlin. In short, ‘power to’ refers to the ability to do something, i.e. the power that we as individuals have over our own lives. ‘Power with’ means the collective ability to act that we gain through cooperation and association with other people. And ‘power over’ is about the dimension that we usually talk about when we talk about abuse of power: the power that one person has over others. Power then means the enforcement of one will against another.
Just like ‘power to’ and ‘power with’, the latter form of power is not a modern, civilizational invention, but something that arises naturally in human communities: Parents have power over their children, the hunter who has captured the wild boar, over the one who is hungry (and over the wild boar anyway), a person desired by several individuals over the desirers. Certain characteristics such as speed, physical strength, knowledge or intelligence, possessions, popularity can – if distributed unequally – naturally put certain people in a position of power over others.
Distribution of power in society: A tried and tested model with some new rules
In the organization of communities, the concentration of power and the allocation of rule to one or a few people has a tradition that long predates the invention of the Ten Commandments and the Latin alphabet: “In human social structures there have always been chiefs, leaders, bosses” says Borwin Bandelow. “The same applies to the animal kingdom: with monkeys we can tell straight away who is the chief ape; wolves have a pack leader. The communities in which the majority submitted to one or a few leaders apparently prevailed and had a survival advantage those in which individuals lived side by side in an anarchist manner.”
Many of the power relations that exist in our society are now not (only) based on individual abilities, situational requirements or the need for survival, but are subject to more diverse influences and laws: traditions, norms, historical events and developments, decisions. “We live according to certain values and rules, follow behavioral patterns and conventions and this creates certain subjects with certain identities,” says Isette Schuhmacher. Superiors, employees, customers, rulers – we live with ideas about roles that are shaped by society. This means that we do not fulfill them completely freely, spontaneously and unbiasedly, or meet people who fulfill them, but with certain expectations and ideas. For example, most people would be more likely to disagree with their peers than with their superiors, even if the former are more competent than the latter. Many people would probably be more nervous when talking to a Federal Chancellor than when chatting with a stranger at the bus stop.
Apart from that, there are gaps and an unequal distribution of power in our society due to structural disadvantages for certain groups of people – for example women. Both can lead to original, simple or individual dynamics that can regulate power relations not being effective or less effective in some contexts. And that some people get into positions of power because of convention and social privilege, not because they are particularly capable or suited to it.
What makes power interesting and attractive for people?
Once a person has power in the “power over” sense, it is natural for them to try to defend it or even increase it: Power gives us control, control means security and we as humans and living beings are known to be very fond of them. We also tend to want to keep something we own or have control over – and since power in our system most often goes hand in hand with financial wealth, this is a dual motive why individuals strive to increase or maintain power.
In our brains, exercising power brings about the same reward effect that we experience when we eat chocolate, watch a beautiful sunset, receive praise, or take certain drugs. “There is a release of endorphins that attach to our opiate receptors, which makes us feel good,” says Borwin Bandelow. Some people experience this effect particularly strongly in connection with power, others with praise, still others with sunsets. It scares some people – and addicts others.
“In people with antisocial personality disorder, we more often find that they have problems with their endorphin system,” says the psychiatrist. “They may then find it very important to exercise power to obtain satisfaction and to feed their insatiable endorphin system.” According to Borwin Bandelow, it is not unusual that these people are generally more susceptible to addictions than others. In this respect, power is not only attractive because it comes with control and often wealth, but it can even be addictive. This potential alone can lead to an actual addiction in a wide variety of people for different reasons Individuals with a pathological lack of empathy and/or self-discipline However, it is particularly likely.
The opposite of abuse of power: what can we actually expect?
While an exercise of power in which people are harmed and oppressed is what we call unhealthy and an abuse of power, its counterpart – a healthy exercise of power – is what we call unhealthy Cooperation, mutual support and the resulting shared successes. “A constructive use of power could consist of empowering another person, for example in the development of their abilities or in general in their ‘power to’. But that also includes breaking down structural power asymmetries and hierarchies,” says Isette Shoemaker. People who feel safe and secure (in their position), who can empathize with those around them and who have a conscious or unconscious understanding of the importance of the “power with” dimension are more likely to be able to do this. On the other hand, people who feel threatened and insecure, are not empathetic and see their personal interests as independent of their social structure will not be treated in this way.
On the one hand, the natural course of things and our original interest as living beings in preserving our own life and our species promote a desirable use of power: We would mostly abuse our power, disregard the categorical imperative, rebel against existing social structures and be uncooperative and ruthless Chasing endorphin kicks, humanity would probably be more at risk than any other animal species.
On the other hand, both as a civilized society and as reasonably rational individuals, we could take measures that make the abuse of power more difficult and encourage and reward the constructive use of power: be more critical and cautious towards role models, for example. Separate possession, wealth and power more closely from one another or link them to one another less directly and naturally. We can concentrate more on the dimensions of power, “power to” and “power with” that are often neglected in the discussion. We can reduce hierarchies where they are not absolutely necessary.
It will probably never happen that everyone, everyone, everyone, everyone pulls together and no one person is harmed or suffers at the hands of another. But the more we exchange information and find out about the weak points and problems in our society, the better we can learn from them and develop further. As humans, we can accomplish wonderful things when we cooperate with one another. Put people (groups) in their place who have more power than they deserve and who do not use it appropriately. For example.
Isette Schuhmacher works as a research assistant at the Center for Social Critique at the Institute for Philosophy at the Humboldt University in Berlin. The focus of her research includes social philosophy, political philosophy, social theory and philosophy of history. The scientist is currently working on her dissertation “Crisis Society”, a socio-philosophical concept of multiple crises.
Professor Doctor Borwin Bandelow is a specialist in neurology and psychiatry. The doctor, scientist and author is particularly known for his expertise and contributions in the field of anxiety research. The fact that he also deals with and is familiar with a wide range of psychological topics is demonstrated by numerous publications such as “Who is afraid of the bad man? Why we are fascinated by perpetrators”, “Celebrities. The difficult luck of being famous” and “The book for shy people “Ways out of self-blockade” (all published by Rowohlt-Verlag). In his latest work, “The Endorphin Principle. How happiness arises in the brain,” the psychiatrist impressively presents what lies behind the human pursuit of happiness, the extent to which it influences our lives – and what the interest in power has to do with it.