F04 Authority Principle

Which do you think is more likely?

We must respect those in positions of power over us to extrinsically maintain the social order.

OR

We must reserve “power” for what restores full wellness to intrinsically sustain the social order.

Anankelogy

The concept of influential power depends largely on the greater power of our underlying natural needs. Apart from needing another’s approval, for example, no one has any influential power over me. The deeper power of nature driving my need for another’s opinion of me fuels the existence of influential power.

When indigenous people speak of power, they typically refer to this deeper power of nature driving our needs. Nonindigenous discourse tends to regard the “power” of social influence on par with the “Power” of nature. Without nature’s power to compel us to depend on others, there is no influential social power.

The more we flow with the greater power of nature to resolve our needs, the less potent the “power”of social influence. The less our needs resolve, the more vulnerable we are to the influence of those we trust to hold things together. The more those in influential positions of power impede resolving our needs, their “power” presents more like a privileged weakness.

Only when powerleads you to resolve your needs can that power be respected in full. Social influence that manipulates us away from resolving needs, and coerces us to endure more suffering, lacks legitimacy. When forcing us to settle for less than our full functioning wellness, it is powerin name only.

Need-response

The other social sciences generally accept the conventional definition of power. They see power as compelling social influence. Anankelogy’s nature-based paradigm requires a deeper view of power.

Anankelogy and need-response recognize the deeper forces of nature shaping our needs. Apart from the greater power of nature driving our needs, there would be no lesser power of social influence.

The more we try to control nature, the more we alienate ourselves from the power of nature to resolve needs. The more alienated we become from resolving our needs, the more drawn to social influence to cope with the resulting pain.

The more we settle for the lesser power of social influence to manage the pain, the fewer of our needs can actually resolve. Pain is not the problem as much as the threats our pain exists to report. The more we allow social power to distract us from our pain and needs, the more that pain likely returns. There is no such thing as pain apart from unmet needs, but we generally prefer our familiar yet dull pain of unmet needs over the sharper pain of unknowns of fully resolving a need.

In other words, social power easily robs us from enjoying natural power.

Reactive Problem

The less your needs resolve, the more your body persists in grabbing your attention with intensifying emotional pain. To cope with that pain to address needs beyond your control, you naturally seek some kind of relief from outside of yourself.

Professional pain-relievers come along and offer you hope. You latch on. You’re soon pleased by gaining some relief. Any relief will do. Now you’re hooked.

Your psychiatrist hooks you on reuptake inhibitors, so you never have to resolve the needs causing you depression. Your favorite news outlet hooks you on outrage porn, so you never have to resolve the needs driving the conflict. Your political leaders hook you on indulgent side-taking, so you never have to resolve your need for community cohesion or address your painful feelings of isolation. You give them “power” over your unresolved needs.

Your unresolved needs persist to alarm you with ongoing pain. The longer you feel alienated from others, for example, the more you suffer loneliness and agonizing despair. So you return to your familiar source of pain relief. You socially give “powerholders” your permission to influence you. And for some reason we call this “power”.

But such social influence is actually weakness. We have it tragically backwards. We resign to regarding such potent social influence as “power” when it would not even exist if we related better to nature’s power driving our needs.

Settling for the “power” of social influence exposes us to manipulation, exploitation, coercion, and settling for alternatives to resolving needs. All in the name of power.

Responsive Solution

Let’s now get right to how this principle can solve that problem. . For now, this serves as placeholder text. When I find the time, I will post the full deal here.

How does this speak to your experience of needs?