bsp;empty rather than full, and that our challenges are simple rather than plex, we get stubsp;If we want to get unstubsp;we need to aowledge our interdepende;cooperate, and feel our way forward. We need therefore to employ not only our power but also our love. If this sounds easy, it is not. It is difficult and dangerous.
TWO PITFALLS
Power and love are difficult to work with because eabsp;of them has two sides. Power has a geive side and a degeive side, andless obviouslylove also has a geive side and a degeive side. Feminist scholar Paola Melchiori pointed out to me that we bsp;see these two sets of two sides if we look at historically structed gender roles. The father, embodying mase power, goes out to work, to do his job. The geive side of his power is that he bsp;create something valuable in the world. The degeive side of his power is that he bsp;bee so focused on his work that he denies his e to his colleagues and family, and so bees a robot or a tyrant.
The mother, by trast, embodying feminine love, stays at home to raise the children. The geive side of her love is that she gives life, literally to her child and figuratively to her whole family. The degeive side of her love is that she bsp;bee so identified with and embrag of her child and family that she denies their and especially her own need for selfrealization, and so stunts their and her own growth.[4]
Love is what makes power geive instead of degeive. Power is what makes love geive instead of degeive. Power and love are therefore exactly plementary. In order for eabsp;to achieve its full potential, it needs the other. Just as the terra nullius perspective of fog only on power is an error, so too is the pop perspective that "all you need is love."
Psychologist Rollo May, a friend of Paul Tillibsp;warned of the dangers of diseg power (whibsp;he referred to as "will") from love. "Love and will," he wrote, "are interdepe and belong together. Both are junctive processes of beinga reag out to influe;others, molding, f, creating the sciousness of the other. But this is only possible, in an inner sense, if one opens oneself at the same time to the influe;of the other. Will without love bees manipulation and love without will bees seal. The bottom then drops out of the junctive emotions and processes."[5] May's junctive processes also operate on a social level, and we bsp;effebsp;nonviolent social ge only if we bsp;engage both our power and our love.
One of the greatest practitioners of nonviolent social ge, Martin Luther King Jr., was both a practibsp;activist and a spiritual leader. He demonstrated a way of addressing tough social challenges that went beyond aggressive war and submissive peabsp;thereby tributing to the creation of new social realities in the United States and around the world. In his last presidential speebsp;to the Southern Christian Leadership fere;Kingdrawing on his doctoral studies of Tillich's workemphasized the essential plementarity between power and love.[6] "Power without love is reckless and abusive," King said, "and love without power is seal and anemic."[7]
My own experie;of the past twenty years entirely bears out King's analysis. Power without love is reckless and abusive. If those of us engaged in social ge absp;to realize ourselves without reizing that we and others are interdepe, the result will at best be iive and at worst, oppressive or even genocidal. And love without power is seal and anemibsp;If we reize our interdepende;and absp;to unify with others, but do so in a way that hobbles our own or others' growth, the result will at best be iual and at worst, deceitfully reinf of the status quo.
Power without love produbsp;scorchedearth war that destroys everything we hold dear. Love without power produbsp;lifeless peabsp;that leaves us stubsp;in plabsp;Both of these are terrible outes. We need to find a better way.
In his speebsp;King went on to say, "This collision of immoral power with powerless morality stitutes the major crisis of our time."[8] This collision tinues because our polarization of power and love tinues. In our societies and unities and anizations, and within eabsp;of us, we usually find a "power camp," whibsp;pays attention to is and differences, and a "love camp," whibsp;pays attention to es and onalities. The collision between these two campsin the worlds of business, politibsp;and social ge, among othersimpedes our ability to make progress on our toughest social challenges.
AN IMPERATIVE
Power and love stand at right angles and delie the spabsp;of social ge. If we want to get unstubsp;and to move around this spaceif we want to address our toughest challengeswe must uand and work with both of these drives.
Rather than a choibsp;to be made one way or another, power and love stitute a perma dilemma that must be reciled tinuously and creatively. This reciliation is easy in theory but hard in practibsp;Carl Jung doubted whether it was even possible for these two drives to coexist in the same person: "Where love reigns, there is no will to power; and where the will power is paramount, love is lag. The one is but the shadow of the other."[9] His student Robert Johnson said, "Probably the most troublesome pair of opposites that we bsp;try to recile is love and power. Our modern world is torn to shreds by this diy, and one finds many more failures than successes in the attempt to recile them."[10]
I have seen many examples of reckless and abusive power without love, and many examples of seal and anemibsp;love without power. I have seen far fewer examples of power with love. Too few of us are capable of employing power with love. More of us need to learn.
If we are to succeed in cocreating new social realities, we ot choose between power and love. We must choose both. This book explores how.
第4章 Introduction: Beyond War and Peace[2/2页]