THE SELF-REINFORCING NATURE OF SOCIAL HIERARCHY: ORIGINS AND CONSEQUENCES OF POWER ..
June 28, 2015 at 1:33 pm
http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?...pdf&TYPE=2
The above is a link to an article that discusses power theory. In general, I think Nietzsche's analysis of power is pretty simplistic, almost as if he's legitimizing power based relationships (whether personal or institutional) as opposed to offering any real insight into its origins (besides just presuming our "will to power" is a natural attribute of human nature, without any substantive elaboration or for that matter any real reasoning behind his assumption, besides I suppose his reading of history or anecdotal observations).
I think power is much more complicated, and it seems to arise under duress (rather than ideal conditions). It can be spurred by rejection (suggesting that a desire for power may be linked to our desire for social acceptance), it can be spurred by desperate circumstances or scarcity, etc., but it's rarely spurred under conditions of peace and abundance, or under an inclusive/egalitarian social system that solicits universal participation.
In fairness, these observations on my part are no less anecdotal than Nietzsche's observations, but they do at least attempt to get at the origins of power, whereas Nietzsche seems to accept our lust for power as a foregone conclusion, and in an almost religious fashion, proclaims it as an innate feature of human nature with no further exploration or insight or study (which IMO is pretty stunning for a thinker who get's so much fanfare in philosophical circles).
The above is a link to an article that discusses power theory. In general, I think Nietzsche's analysis of power is pretty simplistic, almost as if he's legitimizing power based relationships (whether personal or institutional) as opposed to offering any real insight into its origins (besides just presuming our "will to power" is a natural attribute of human nature, without any substantive elaboration or for that matter any real reasoning behind his assumption, besides I suppose his reading of history or anecdotal observations).
I think power is much more complicated, and it seems to arise under duress (rather than ideal conditions). It can be spurred by rejection (suggesting that a desire for power may be linked to our desire for social acceptance), it can be spurred by desperate circumstances or scarcity, etc., but it's rarely spurred under conditions of peace and abundance, or under an inclusive/egalitarian social system that solicits universal participation.
In fairness, these observations on my part are no less anecdotal than Nietzsche's observations, but they do at least attempt to get at the origins of power, whereas Nietzsche seems to accept our lust for power as a foregone conclusion, and in an almost religious fashion, proclaims it as an innate feature of human nature with no further exploration or insight or study (which IMO is pretty stunning for a thinker who get's so much fanfare in philosophical circles).
