RE: Authoritarian Sociopathy: Toward a Renegade Psychological Experiment, Part 3
I appreciate the very thoughtful treatment, and insightful conclusions you draw in this article.
I would, however, like you to consider that many people do undertake authority over people, and do so without becoming sadistic in the least, and even deeply loving - their children.
Many parents even spoil children excessively.
While I do believe that institutions, and authority, breed power politics, I have noted that such power dynamics can radically change due to nominal training and personnel decisions.
Some years ago I went to an American jail for some time awaiting trial. It was awful, and threats, beatings, and various abuses, including guards setting prisoners on one another in beatings, and rape, occurred.
Later I had occasion to reside there again, briefly. The culture had changed dramatically. The guards no longer threatened prisoners. There were no beatings, abuse, or rapes. Guards called their prisoners 'sir', and treated them with respect. Overall, the prisoners themselves were less violent towards one another in the more respectful climate.
A new Jail Commander had taken over the facility a year or so before my stay there, and set new standards of treatment that his deputies either followed, or they were fired.
It was very clear to me that the character of the Jail Commander and the deputies he had retained were critical - indeed, the only possible reason - to the improved environment and outcomes for all concerned.
I believe there is no greater test of character than to be in authority over others, and remain convinced that in Stanford, and sadly, in Abu Ghraib, the character of people was found lacking.
I also am convinced that training is essential in preventing such abuse as we see does, all too often, occur. While no training in the world could stop abuses conducted by persons with deficient character, it is probably true that, absent good training, even the best of men can succumb to the heady draught of power.
It is also clear that some people are drawn to power because of their own psychological flaws, which is why personnel changes at that jail had been necessary to achieve the stark change in that environment.
Thanks for this post!
Children are a stewardship relationship, not a ruler/subject relationship. When parents behave like the latter, that is when abuse rather than nurturing is the result.
See the new post on legitimate versus illegitimate power. I think you will find it illuminating.
I don't really see the point in the semantic differentiation between the two. It remains a fact that parents do have to exercise absolute authority over their children, no matter how you couch it semantically.
It is also a fact that parents are imperfect, and that all of them both fail and succeed at certain aspects of their task. Generally, parents do not abuse their authority by becoming sadistic.
Whatever you call it, the exercise of power over others is reflective of character, and it is not possible to exclude character as a factor determining abuse of power.
I hope to soon see your new post.
Thanks!
It's a massive distinction whether you grasp it or not. Rulership is a claim of ownership. Stewardship is acknowledgement that you are protecting what belongs to someone else.