Power relations

Changing the world has been one of the prerogatives of ordinary men to become extraordinary men. Changing the world to many men is not a question of making it better, but changing it in their image. However, does the changing the world require disempowerment, or the empowerment of the masses?

It is a question that I am only beginning to grapple with. I could be a complete cynic and argue that some men achieve power for the mere sake of power, but I do not believe that most men do this. Power is the most elemental, primal necessity of men. People seek power to fulfill a desire or a need to change themselves and/or the world around them. Although, power unto itself contains an appeal because it appeals to mankind's fascination with control and subduing nature/God.

All the social relations that are of any real significance, sex, business, and politics is based on the notion of power. Power does not only manifest itself through brute force, usually when it is manifested in such a manner it is indicative of the weakness of the person's power. Rather power is manifested through the manipulation of individual talents to maximum effect, and that manipulation is best confirmed by the acceptance by other's of that person's framing of reality. In order to be powerful one has to be cognizant and confident enough to recognize and use those talents.

There are instances, where what could be a person's most powerful asset, for example sex appeal, or greed becomes their greatest enemy. Simply because that power is not rationally harnessed by the individual. Rather, the individual sees these assets merely as ends to themselves, not means. When one pursues sex, or profit as the end and not out of the social implications of that relation they are weakened to the point whereby they can be manipulated to someone who is knowledgeable of their own power. The individual seeks to only submit to the will of the other. This is due to their own inability to admit or seek their own truth and power in fear of the implications of independence and responsibility.Those who are in power recognize these failing's and exploit the weaknesses in the other to their own benefit. The exploited, due to either self-interest,fear, or gullibility simply cannot compete especially when that one in power has set the agenda.

Sadly, in order for power to exist, these, people have to exist. These people who are unable to realize their own potential power, who are tramped on and who are gullible to power, enable the worst excesses of power to exist, needless to say they are usually the first victims in the wrath of power. Indeed, power is a function of exploitation and realization of the other's weakness real of perceived.

One of the problems with the notion of empowerment is that it destroys the basis of power, the asymmetrical relationship. Empowerment is not bringing people up, it is bringing people down. Is this a bad thing? Of course it is not, if everyone is brought to an equitable level of "power", which is a contradiction. Due to the natural inequalities of man, strength, knowledge would have to be conditioned out of the notions of power or they will be used to impose on the equal masses power once again. Thus, to empower the masses seems suspect at this point.

Bourgeois ideology?