Jonathan, I'm very much appreciating this reflection on "the essence of Christmas amidst the excess of Christmas."
However, I must disagree with Carl Jung(!) where he claims that "where there is love, there is no will to power." What is power, if it is not the ability to have an influence or an effect? Certainly wisdom or love can have strong effects.
We make a mistake when we think of power only in terms of "power over," and neglect "power with." Process-relational theologian-philosophers Bernard Loomer and Charles Hartshorne made an important distinction in outlining two conceptions of power, which Loomer called "linear/unilateral power" and "relational power."
Bernard Loomer wrote the following:
"When love is contrasted with power, as it is usually done within the Christian theological tradition, it needs to be noted that it is the linear conception of power that is regarded as the antithesis of love. Again, when Jesus (and other christological figures) is described as being powerless, and as having renounced power as the world understands power, it is unilateral power that is at issue. In terms of this kind of power, Jesus and other religious leaders are at the bottom of the hierarchy of power.
The issue between love and linear power is not finally the issue between persuasion and coercion. The contrast consists in the direction of one’s concern, with power focused in the self-interest of an individual or a group, and love concerned with what is for the good of the other. In some interpretations of love, especially Christian love, it would appear that love is as unilateral and nonrelational in its way as linear power is in its way. The interpretation of divine love, as being a concern for the other with no concern for itself, may be the ultimate instance.
It may be that love has been interpreted in this fashion as a compensatory device to counteract the one-sidedness of linear power. Love then becomes one side of the coin that carries the face of power on the other side. This involves the principle that the way to offset one extreme is to introduce a contrary extreme. It would appear that this kind of love, like this kind of power, needs an alternative conception."
In his long section describing Relational Power, Loomer writes:
"Relational power is the capacity to sustain an internal relationship. The sustaining does not include management, control, or domination. Rather, it involves the persistent effort to create and maintain the relationship as internal. This effort is carried out within the context of the factors and conditions previously described, and in the face of all the dynamic forces which operate to weaken or break the internality and transform it into the predominantly external type of relationship that is characteristic of the practice of unilateral power.
...The suffering servant is rather one who can sustain a relationship involving great contrast, in this case the incompatibility between love and hate. In absorbing the hate or indifference derived from the other, while attempting to sustain the relationship by responding with love for the other, the extreme of contrasts is exemplified. This contrast is an incompatibility, in fact an emotional contradiction. But by having the size to absorb this contradiction within the integrity of his own being, and in having the strength to sustain the relationship, the incompatibility has been transformed into a compatible contrast.
This is size indeed. This consideration highlights the principle that the life of relational power requires a greater strength and size than the life of unilateral power. The suffering servant, in returning love for hate, and in attempting to sustain the relationship as internal and creative, must be psychically larger and stronger than those who unilaterally hate. Without this greater strength and larger size the suffering servant could not sustain the relationship. He would crack psychologically, or he would break the relationship and revert to the practice of unilateral power.
It follows from all this that a christological figure such as Jesus, who is to be found at the bottom of the hierarchy of unilateral power, stands at the apex of life conceived in terms of relational power. But a messiah of size cannot be created out of the weakness of a milquetoast. In considering the topic of size it needs to be noted, again, that inequality is present as an inescapable condition. Because of this inequality there is an unfairness to life. This quality appears to have something like a categoreal status in our experience. Our only choice is to choose between two forms of unfairness. In the life of unilateral power the unfairness means that the stronger are able to control and dominate the weaker and thereby claim their disproportionate share of the world’s goods and values. In the life of relational power, the unfairness means that those of larger size must undergo greater suffering and bear a greater burden in sustaining those relationships which hopefully may heal the brokenness of the seamless web of interdependence in which we all live. "Of whom much is given, much is expected."
Thank you for this comment. I was quoting from the dharma talk quoting Jung so have no skin the game in terms of the contention you’re responding to. That said, the question of love’s relationship to power has been with me for over a decade now. I think the first (of many) public event I chaired at the RSA was on that subject, after a book by Adam Kahane, who is building on MLK who is interpreting Tillich. It’s here (you can see a younger me near the end): https://youtu.be/v8ScJqk25yo?si=JegoLhuID2T-4tBL
Looker’s conception of relational power as bing the capacity to sustain an internal relationship is intriguing, because I can’t help but hear that in developmental terms, for instance through the eyes of a model like Robert Kegan’s. And the two types of unfairness is quite a thought...but all very interesting thanks. 🙏
Yes, Jonathan, and Traktung Khepa did quote Jung accurately (h/t Petra Pieterse for confirming), but I just think Jung was a little off in that statement. I listened to the full dharma talk. You have to listen carefully, but he does acknowledge toward the end that there is another kind of power - a power of actions and force that can come through love and wisdom. He may have even said out loud "the power of wisdom."
Thanks also for the link to the Adam Kahane talk. Kahane talks about power in a bit of a different way, and I appreciate that he acknowledges that power in and of itself is not universally "bad," but in fact is necessary to exist, and that it has two sides. "A generative side - a side that can create - a 'power to,' and a degenerative side that can oppress - a 'power over'." The third side would then be the "power with" that Loomer describes.
I also like Tillich's definition of power, which Kahane quotes: "the drive of everything living to realize itself, with increasing intensity and extensity."
If we take in these three perspectives from Traktung Khepa, Adam Kahane, and Bernard Loomer, we might begin to make some real headway on our conceptions of power.
And yes, I agree about hearing Loomer's concept of "size" in developmental terms. This brings me back to the important contributions of Peter Pogany and Jean Gebser. With Gebser's integral structure of consciousness in mind, he noted that bridging the gap between our current socio-economic structure and the socio-economic structure that is needed cannot take place without a major transformation of individual consciousness; and a major transformation of individual consciousness cannot take place as long as characteristics of the current socio-economic institutions prevail in their power-over dynamic. "Ay, there's the rub..."
Another thought - in the recent conversation between Daniel Schmactenberger, Iain McGilchrist, and John Vervaeke that was aired on your channel, the "power-over" dynamic came up numerous times. The relational "power with" dynamic was also present in the conversation, but it wasn't specifically called out or highlighted as such. Almost as if it was not fully present in their consciousness that this is indeed a type of power that can be fostered and developed.
And finally, an FYI: MLK's dissertation was not solely focused on Paul Tillich. The title was "A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman." This is important to me because Wieman is my personal favorite philosopher-theologian, and he seems to be largely forgotten today. And Wieman was a mentor to Bernard Loomer. Secondly, MLK's thesis was actually arguing against both Tillich and Wieman. MLK was defending his belief in a personal God against the abstract existential views of Tillich and against the naturalistic theology of Wieman. There could be something in there that conveys some aspects of positive influence from their teaching on MLK, but I'm not aware of it.
Maybe about the birth of humanity. Self-reflexive consciousness appears, full of potential to realize the the oneness of humanity, where, from that realization, people would want to serve each other.
Maybe you will win for longest and I will win for shortest.
Jonathan, I'm very much appreciating this reflection on "the essence of Christmas amidst the excess of Christmas."
However, I must disagree with Carl Jung(!) where he claims that "where there is love, there is no will to power." What is power, if it is not the ability to have an influence or an effect? Certainly wisdom or love can have strong effects.
We make a mistake when we think of power only in terms of "power over," and neglect "power with." Process-relational theologian-philosophers Bernard Loomer and Charles Hartshorne made an important distinction in outlining two conceptions of power, which Loomer called "linear/unilateral power" and "relational power."
Bernard Loomer wrote the following:
"When love is contrasted with power, as it is usually done within the Christian theological tradition, it needs to be noted that it is the linear conception of power that is regarded as the antithesis of love. Again, when Jesus (and other christological figures) is described as being powerless, and as having renounced power as the world understands power, it is unilateral power that is at issue. In terms of this kind of power, Jesus and other religious leaders are at the bottom of the hierarchy of power.
The issue between love and linear power is not finally the issue between persuasion and coercion. The contrast consists in the direction of one’s concern, with power focused in the self-interest of an individual or a group, and love concerned with what is for the good of the other. In some interpretations of love, especially Christian love, it would appear that love is as unilateral and nonrelational in its way as linear power is in its way. The interpretation of divine love, as being a concern for the other with no concern for itself, may be the ultimate instance.
It may be that love has been interpreted in this fashion as a compensatory device to counteract the one-sidedness of linear power. Love then becomes one side of the coin that carries the face of power on the other side. This involves the principle that the way to offset one extreme is to introduce a contrary extreme. It would appear that this kind of love, like this kind of power, needs an alternative conception."
In his long section describing Relational Power, Loomer writes:
"Relational power is the capacity to sustain an internal relationship. The sustaining does not include management, control, or domination. Rather, it involves the persistent effort to create and maintain the relationship as internal. This effort is carried out within the context of the factors and conditions previously described, and in the face of all the dynamic forces which operate to weaken or break the internality and transform it into the predominantly external type of relationship that is characteristic of the practice of unilateral power.
...The suffering servant is rather one who can sustain a relationship involving great contrast, in this case the incompatibility between love and hate. In absorbing the hate or indifference derived from the other, while attempting to sustain the relationship by responding with love for the other, the extreme of contrasts is exemplified. This contrast is an incompatibility, in fact an emotional contradiction. But by having the size to absorb this contradiction within the integrity of his own being, and in having the strength to sustain the relationship, the incompatibility has been transformed into a compatible contrast.
This is size indeed. This consideration highlights the principle that the life of relational power requires a greater strength and size than the life of unilateral power. The suffering servant, in returning love for hate, and in attempting to sustain the relationship as internal and creative, must be psychically larger and stronger than those who unilaterally hate. Without this greater strength and larger size the suffering servant could not sustain the relationship. He would crack psychologically, or he would break the relationship and revert to the practice of unilateral power.
It follows from all this that a christological figure such as Jesus, who is to be found at the bottom of the hierarchy of unilateral power, stands at the apex of life conceived in terms of relational power. But a messiah of size cannot be created out of the weakness of a milquetoast. In considering the topic of size it needs to be noted, again, that inequality is present as an inescapable condition. Because of this inequality there is an unfairness to life. This quality appears to have something like a categoreal status in our experience. Our only choice is to choose between two forms of unfairness. In the life of unilateral power the unfairness means that the stronger are able to control and dominate the weaker and thereby claim their disproportionate share of the world’s goods and values. In the life of relational power, the unfairness means that those of larger size must undergo greater suffering and bear a greater burden in sustaining those relationships which hopefully may heal the brokenness of the seamless web of interdependence in which we all live. "Of whom much is given, much is expected."
Merry Christmas, Jonathan!
https://www.religion-online.org/article/two-conceptions-of-power/
Thank you for this comment. I was quoting from the dharma talk quoting Jung so have no skin the game in terms of the contention you’re responding to. That said, the question of love’s relationship to power has been with me for over a decade now. I think the first (of many) public event I chaired at the RSA was on that subject, after a book by Adam Kahane, who is building on MLK who is interpreting Tillich. It’s here (you can see a younger me near the end): https://youtu.be/v8ScJqk25yo?si=JegoLhuID2T-4tBL
Looker’s conception of relational power as bing the capacity to sustain an internal relationship is intriguing, because I can’t help but hear that in developmental terms, for instance through the eyes of a model like Robert Kegan’s. And the two types of unfairness is quite a thought...but all very interesting thanks. 🙏
*Loomer’s.
Yes, Jonathan, and Traktung Khepa did quote Jung accurately (h/t Petra Pieterse for confirming), but I just think Jung was a little off in that statement. I listened to the full dharma talk. You have to listen carefully, but he does acknowledge toward the end that there is another kind of power - a power of actions and force that can come through love and wisdom. He may have even said out loud "the power of wisdom."
Thanks also for the link to the Adam Kahane talk. Kahane talks about power in a bit of a different way, and I appreciate that he acknowledges that power in and of itself is not universally "bad," but in fact is necessary to exist, and that it has two sides. "A generative side - a side that can create - a 'power to,' and a degenerative side that can oppress - a 'power over'." The third side would then be the "power with" that Loomer describes.
I also like Tillich's definition of power, which Kahane quotes: "the drive of everything living to realize itself, with increasing intensity and extensity."
If we take in these three perspectives from Traktung Khepa, Adam Kahane, and Bernard Loomer, we might begin to make some real headway on our conceptions of power.
And yes, I agree about hearing Loomer's concept of "size" in developmental terms. This brings me back to the important contributions of Peter Pogany and Jean Gebser. With Gebser's integral structure of consciousness in mind, he noted that bridging the gap between our current socio-economic structure and the socio-economic structure that is needed cannot take place without a major transformation of individual consciousness; and a major transformation of individual consciousness cannot take place as long as characteristics of the current socio-economic institutions prevail in their power-over dynamic. "Ay, there's the rub..."
Another thought - in the recent conversation between Daniel Schmactenberger, Iain McGilchrist, and John Vervaeke that was aired on your channel, the "power-over" dynamic came up numerous times. The relational "power with" dynamic was also present in the conversation, but it wasn't specifically called out or highlighted as such. Almost as if it was not fully present in their consciousness that this is indeed a type of power that can be fostered and developed.
And finally, an FYI: MLK's dissertation was not solely focused on Paul Tillich. The title was "A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman." This is important to me because Wieman is my personal favorite philosopher-theologian, and he seems to be largely forgotten today. And Wieman was a mentor to Bernard Loomer. Secondly, MLK's thesis was actually arguing against both Tillich and Wieman. MLK was defending his belief in a personal God against the abstract existential views of Tillich and against the naturalistic theology of Wieman. There could be something in there that conveys some aspects of positive influence from their teaching on MLK, but I'm not aware of it.
Busy few days ahead, but I’ll try to process and reply soon. J
Thank you. That was very pertinent and interesting.
Merry Christmas to you all.
Please find a de-light-full reworking and celebration of the Christmas gift-giving tradition and season via this reference:
http://global.adidam.org/books/danavira-mela
Plus two references on the Forgotten Spiritual Esotericism of Saint Jesus of Galilee too via these two essays:
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-1.htm
http://www.dabase.org/up-6.htm
Wisdom never kneels - brilliant.
Thank you, Johnathan. This is such a helpful post. I'll be returning to it to reflect on your thoughts and those you have shared.
Maybe about the birth of humanity. Self-reflexive consciousness appears, full of potential to realize the the oneness of humanity, where, from that realization, people would want to serve each other.
Maybe you will win for longest and I will win for shortest.
Here's my Christmas win for everyone: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/opinion/santa-christmas-mushrooms.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share