Veronika Janyrova
The word power is not experiencing its best times right now. As a rule, power is associated with reckless, despotic and egocentric behavior. But this is only half the truth. Power can also be understood as a way to make or influence something.
The Stanford experiment
A psychological experiment from the year 1971 simulating the power relations in a prison shows the human inclination to power over others. The researchers decided by coin toss if a test person was a prisoner or prisoner. In the course of the role-playing game, the participants (tested for mental mediocrity and health) developed with few exceptions into power-hungry guards and submissive prisoners. After some mistreatment, the experiment had to be stopped. Meanwhile, it has been filmed several times.
On closer inspection, power - on the part of the powerful as well as the powerless - can certainly make sense. As a rule, people voluntarily submit to power only when they receive something worthwhile in return. This can be about security, protection, a regular income, but also orientation. At the same time, exercising power can be a positive experience. In his book "The Psychology of Power," psychologist and management coach Michael Schmitz tries to get to the bottom of his clients' quest for power and sums it up: "Power nourishes itself. It strengthens self-efficacy and self-esteem. It gives prestige, recognition, followers ".
Even the renowned psychologist Susan Fiske of Princeton University can justify the pursuit of power well: "power increases personal freedom of action, motivation and not least the social status." So far so good.
The other truth is that people in positions of power tend to overestimate their abilities, take higher risks and ignore other views as well as other people. As different as the approaches of social psychologists are, on one point they seem to agree: power changes a person's personality.
"I think rulers have to feel that they do not have their power, but that it has been given to them by others (through elections) and can be withdrawn again (by voting)."
The paradox of power
According to renowned psychologist Dacher Keltner of the University of Berkeley, experience of power can be described as a process in which "someone opens one's skull and removes the part that is particularly important for empathy and socially appropriate behavior." In his book "The Paradox of power "he turns our Machiavellian, negatively influenced image of power on its head and describes a phenomenon that has found its way into social psychology as the" paradox of power ". According to Keltner, one gains power primarily through social intelligence and empathic behavior. But as power becomes more and more powerful, man loses the qualities by which he has acquired his power. According to Keltner, power is not the ability to act brutally and ruthlessly, but to do good for others. An interesting thought.
In any case, power is an unleashing force that can drive a person to madness in extreme cases. Add to that some situational factors, such as a widespread sense of injustice, humiliation and hopelessness, even a whole society. For example, Hitler or Stalin, with some 50 or 20 million victims, impressively and sustainably demonstrated this to us.
In fact, our planet has always been and is rich in political machinations. And not only in Africa, the Middle or Middle East. European history also has much to offer here. We all too gladly forget that the political landscape of Europe in the first half of the 20. In the 20th century dictators were literally littered with no sacrifice for their own survival and who outdoed each other in their atrocities. Consider Romania (Ceausescu), Spain (Franco), Greece (Ioannidis), Italy (Mussolini), Estonia (Pats), Lithuania (Smetona) or Portugal (Salazar). The fact that today in connection with the Belarussian President Lukashenko like to speak of the "last dictator of Europe", even raises a little hope in the face of this.
Responsibility or opportunity?
But how is the excess of power, which so often fails humanity, effectively tackled? What factors determine whether power is perceived as a responsibility or a personal opportunity for self-enrichment?
The psychologist Annika Scholl from the University of Tübingen has been investigating this question for some time and mentions three crucial factors: "Whether power is understood as a responsibility or an opportunity depends on the cultural context, the person and especially the concrete situation." (see info box) An interesting detail is that "in Western cultures, people understand power rather as an opportunity, rather than responsibility in Far Eastern cultures," said Scholl.
Legitimation, control & transparency
Whether power makes a person good (that's possible!) Or changed for the worse, but depends only partly on his personality. No less important are the social conditions under which a ruler acts. A prominent and determined advocate of this thesis is Philip Zimbardo, emeritus professor of psychology at the American University of Stanford. With his famous Stanford Prison Experiment, he has impressively and persistently proven that people are unlikely to resist the temptations of power. For him, the only effective remedy against abuse of power is clear rules, institutionalized transparency, openness and regular feedback at all levels.
The social psychologist Joris Lammers of the University of Cologne also sees the most important factors on the social level: "I think rulers must feel that they do not have their power, but that they have been given them by others (through elections) and again (by deselecting ) can be withdrawn ". In other words, power needs legitimacy and control so as not to get out of hand. "Whether rulers see this or not depends, among other things, on an active opposition, a critical press, and the willingness of the population to demonstrate against injustice," said Lammers.
The most effective means against abuse of power seems to be democracy itself. Legitimation (through elections), control (through separation of powers) and transparency (through the media) are at least conceptually firmly anchored in it. And if this is missing in practice, you have to act.
The power on the track
A position of power can be understood as responsibility and / or opportunity. Responsibility here means a sense of inner commitment to power holders. Opportunity is the experience of freedom or opportunities. Research indicates that various factors influence how individuals understand and exercise a position of power:(1) Culture: In Western cultures, people see power as an opportunity rather than responsibility in Far Eastern cultures. Presumably, this is mainly influenced by the values that are common within a culture.
(2) Personal factors: Personal values also play an important role. People with prosocial values - for example, who attach great importance to the well-being of other people - understand power rather than responsibility. Individuals with individual values - who, for example, place much value on their own state of health - seem to understand power rather than opportunity.
(3) The concrete situation: The concrete situation can be more important than the personality. For example, here we were able to show that powerful people understand their power within a group as responsibility if they identify themselves highly with this group. In short, if you think of the "we" rather than the "me".Dr. Annika Scholl, Deputy Head of the Working Group Social Process, Leibniz Institute for Knowledge Media (IWM), Tübingen - Germany
Photo / Video: Shutterstock.
