Merlin Crossley reflects on the nature of leadership and power following the US election result.
In politics, in management, in interpreting history, in assigning motives, I increasingly notice that the talk is all about power. It has become commonplace to distrust one another and to see historical decisions as being based on a singular lust for power.
Nationalism, colonialism, racism, and sexism are all considered to be about power.
Being aware of this perspective can help us be more sympathetic, to empathise, and to provide support for the disadvantaged.
But the perspective also erodes trust in our institutions and culture. It robs us of the opportunity to celebrate good achievements in the past, and in many cases, it is simply untrue that power was a motivator. Scientific facts, for instance, are generally facts, not imaginings of bullying scientists desiring to rule the world.
Not only do most scientists not want to dominate the world. Most people don’t. It is possible that the greater motivation driving human behaviour is love, or more specifically a simple desire for acceptance and belonging.
Personally, I think there are more leaders who are narcissists than psychopaths. And even narcissists long for love not power.
Developing a world view that sees all the forceful personalities as psychopaths is wrong, and counterproductive. It distorts history and the present. It prevents us from building trust. Trust is important because it is the foundation on which cooperation stands. And pretty much all human achievements have depended on cooperation.
We should neither idealise the past, nor be complacent about the present, but viewing the world through a lens of power, oppression, and imposed suffering undermines our ability to cooperate, to solve collective action problems, and to build on past successes.
How can I be so confident that the main motivations are love and belonging rather than a desire for power and domination?
I’ll cite some arguments, and I contend that even if I’m wrong, optimistically assigning good motives is a better long term strategy than being suspicious.
My main argument for why people – most people, including our leaders and leaders from history – are more interested in love and belonging than in power can be seen by consulting Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs.
He suggested that humans first seek to satisfy basic physiological needs – air to breathe, water, food, warmth. If these are satisfied, people look for security – a stability in the physiological requirements and avoidance of harm. Next, they seek companionship, belonging, respect and love. Finally, satisfaction through achievement and reflection.
But no where do they seek power over others.
Power over others does emerge but mostly as a consequence of needs not being met. If one is starving one might steal from a weaker person to survive. If threatened one might fight. If one’s family is threatened one might also fight to survive.
Similarly, most research funding aligns with these human needs. Researchers are funded to study quality air, water, food, shelter, and security. Smaller amounts of funding are provided for art and culture. There may be funding for defence research, and it’s called defence because the primary motivation is defence, not attack.
Now try to consider all the ills of history and current societal challenges through the lens of being motivated by survival instincts and love of family and friends. Nationalism, racism, colonialism all have existed, and continue, but they can be viewed as being driven by love and fear rather than by feelings of superiority, psychopathic contempt, and bullying of others.
Fear and desperation do emerge, but they emerge when basic needs are not met. Evil may result, but more likely from a fear of vulnerability, than a lust for power.
It’s hard and psychologically difficult to pivot away from hating villains towards realising that there are very few true villains out there. That ills do not arise primarily from corrupt or mad leaders but from imperfections in the system and its complexity that allows some people’s needs to take precedence over those of others.
If we can just create a community where everyone feels more secure in having physiological needs met and feels more respected, with a sense of belonging, then the fear will evaporate and hopefully all members of society will continue to invest in things that increase their sense of belonging – things like helping others and serving the community. Simple things like doing one’s job well within a community that values that work.
I have long believed in the wisdom of the ancients. Few of their stories survived, so those that did are special. The Homeric epic begins with Paris having to choose between Athena (the god of power and war), Artemis (the god of the hunt), or Aphrodite (the god of love). He chooses love – of course!
It doesn’t end well. He is the most handsome man, so Aphrodite rewards him with the most beautiful woman – Helen of Troy. The problem is she is already married to Menelaus. The Trojan war ensues but it was started by love. Not colonialism, not nationalism, not racism.
It’s complicated being human. Secondary needs like respect, belonging, love, or status can induce competition and trigger the old sins of envy and jealousy, but the root of it all is love not power.
The postmodern lens that sees everything, including science, in terms of power and oppression is just wrong.
Whatever community you inhabit, the trick is to try to make those who depend on you feel secure by listening and treating them with respect. And to work with those who have responsibility for you – including our politicians – interpreting their actions as motivated by love rather than power.
The answer was here all the time. It’s not a dog-eat-dog world of oppression. It’s all about love, actually.
Professor Merlin Crossley is Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic Quality at UNSW
