For those new
to this blog, its overall goal is to describe, explain, and promote federation
theory. That theory can be utilized to
guide the development and implementation of a civics curriculum. While this aim sounds modest, it is demanding. The main reason for the difficulty is what is
in place. To begin with, every society
has a prominent view of governance and politics in place. The US is no exception. It has a view this blog and others call that natural
rights view and that view, in various ways, is both alluring and detrimental to
a just and civil society.
The allure stems from its basic tenet,
i.e., people have the right to form their own values and attitudes and to act
in ways to achieve or further those choices up to the point they do not deny
anyone else the same rights. Of course,
this is a form of liberty and liberty is central to Americanism. But as is often the case, language plays a
part in all of this.
In the history of political
development there have been various definitions of liberty. This particular one has been given a name –
natural liberty. It is probably the most
permissive form of liberty. It is named
“natural” because it resembles what one attributes to animals out in the
wild. They simply do what they want to
do assuming they are not constrained.
Of course, each animal’s freedom can and does run
into conflict with that of other animals.
A smaller animal’s right to live can be shorten by a larger animal’s
right to eat. And the solution to this
“conflict” is settled by violence to the cost usually of the smaller animal. To avoid the likelihood of that happening to
humans, humans have qualified rights by the proviso that each needs to honor
the rights of others with a general commitment to the rules and laws that
govern human interactions.
The concern for governance and politics has a lot to
do with what those rules and laws are and how they are enforced. Since people do not all have the same interests
in relation to those rules and laws, each – according to the natural rights
view – competes with others to secure the set of provisions that benefit his/her
interests. In practical terms, for
example, business owners and workers, in many ways, have opposing interests. Which interests prevail relies to a great
degree on the rules and laws pertaining to that competition.
This, in turn, leads to a view of society as a compilation
of competing entities with a vague – although often strongly felt – sense of loyalty
to the very system in which they compete.
One knows this view is favored by the fact that one is not surprised or
that much insulted if one hears of this or that individual breaking those rules
or laws to gain advantage in this system of competition. As a matter of fact, certain rule or
lawbreakers are romanticized by those who are taken by this spirit of liberty. These examples of criminals are hoisted by a
strange allegiance to a notion of “I can do what I want.”
And with this context, this posting can get at its main
topic: how do natural rights advocates
promote themselves in the various competitive situations they confront? Robert Greene wrote a book full of advice.[1] In general, he portrays a social reality as
being one of competition and the ultimate currency of that competition is
power.
Power comes in various forms. Citing another source,[2]
there are five basic forms of power: coercive
power, reward power, expert power, legitimate power, and referent power. Money is simply a tool that can assist one or
other of these different forms – e.g., it can be traded to attain a reward, or it
can be withheld to administer a punishment.
And to be clear, power occurs when one gets someone else to do what he/she
would not do otherwise.[3] Obviously, this view reflects market thinking
writ large.
And this leads one to an aspect of market relations
that enhances one’s competitive advantage.
Instead of viewing one’s approach to how one engages others in these
markets, one is apt to be more concerned with image than substance. One competitor has an advantage if he/she
convinces others of the merit of his/her product and/or of the detriment of alternative
products and/or of doing without. And
here one gets a sense of where this sort of thinking leads. It turns out, according to Greene, that reputation
is more important than substance.
And a “good” reputation is not necessarily better
than some sort of unsavory reputation.
Greene gives a set of examples in which military leaders, such as
Rommel, were able to secure victories merely based on their reputations and not
on their strength. That is, in various
situations they projected deceiving images or information that convinced an
enemy that discretion would be the better part of valor. They lied in order to win in those situations.
According to Greene, one should take those examples
and apply them to the competitive arenas one confronts not only in business, but
in any political confrontation in which one might engage. That’s just prudent and a product of a
natural rights’ political world. But
does one need to see politics in this way?
And beyond that, should they see politics in this way?
This is not the way federation theory suggests
people see politics. Yes, politics
entails competition – that’s not controversial.
But here’s a progression that might suggest a different
perspective. It’s from reciprocity to sentiment
to self-fulfillment. Reciprocity
suggests that if one does someone else a good turn, that other person is likely
to return the favor. And enough of that
most likely elicits positive feelings, people liking each other and even
leading to love in some cases. And
finally, enough positive experiences feelings teach people that happiness and
even joy are dependent on positive social relationships.
Greene’s view doesn’t see interactions this
way. But one can say that he is writing
about competition, not socializing. But
that’s part of the point. Greene’s view
promotes a social landscape in which interactions boil down to competition and
one’s reputation is built not just by competitive interactions but by all
interactions. People form their judgements
of others by how those others act in any interaction they might be perceived
doing. Afterall, one cannot look into someone
else’s mind, but only observe his/her behavior.
Perhaps sharing a snippet of what he has to say
might make his message clear.
Reputation is the
cornerstone of power. Through reputation
alone you can intimidate and win; once it slips, however, you are vulnerable,
and will be attacked on all sides. Make
your reputation unassailable. Always be
alert to potential attacks and thwart them before they happen. Meanwhile, learn to destroy your enemies by
opening holes in their own reputations.
Then stand aside and let public opinion hang them.[4]
What this
writer finds interesting is that Greene relies heavily on military examples
where confrontations are singular battles, and one does not waste time with consequences
other than winning or losing. Regular
life is more continuous and human relationships evolve via day-by-day interactions. But even in a political atmosphere, one needs
alliances, and, in turn, they do not last when pending punishment hangs over
those involved. Doubt it? Just look at the current president’s situation.
[1]
Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power (New
York, NY: Penguin Books, 1998).
[2]
John R.
P. French, Jr. and Bertram Raven, “The Bases of Power,” in Current Perspectives in Social Psychology, ed. Edwin P. Hollander
and Raymond G. Hunt (New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 1967), 504-512.
[3]
Andre Munro, “Robert A. Dahl:
American Political Scientist and Educator,” Encyclopaedia Britannica,
February 1, 2020, accessed February 12, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-A-Dahl .
[4]
Robert Greene, The 48 Laws of Power, 37.
