The nature of power in Psyche-Yoga

There is a popular idea that power changes people, but to Psyche-Yoga, it only reveals people’s true character. How else can we explain the differences in behaviors between several of the great Roman emperors? Could it be that the self-destruction of Nero, the megalomania of Julius Caesar, and the peace and balance of Marcus Aurelius were simply a consequence of the political circumstances of each period of Rome? Syntax of Love explains that there’s something more profound and personal than this, the Will. The Will placement dictates one’s sense of their self, ethics, relationships with society (individuals, groups, institutions), and approach to power and authority. Therefore, different positions of the Will in someone’s type will produce different attitudes and behaviors regarding the exertion of command, which will be explored in this short essay.

The divine power of the King

Tolstoy, revealing his excess of Will, said “I live for show, for people”. The irony of the absolutism of power and freedom of the Tsar is that they’re dependent on their own need for influence, which demands inherent connection and codependence with society.

Ancient societies believed that their rulers were viewed as directly chosen by their gods, and some thought that they were literal, bodily incarnations of deities. Many years in the future, during the Age of Absolutism, a political doctrine was formed in which the monarch was not bound by any human authority — such as the Pope or the parliament —, and their authority was equivalent to God’s authority. We can say that the mind of the 1st Will operates exactly like this. The Tsar was called a born leader not because of a predisposition or ability with management of people, but because their worldview directly puts their wish and desire as given, a necessity to be fulfilled regardless of disagreement or disputes.

When in a position of influence, authority isn’t bound by the role they’re executed, but by their own self, for who they are. When Napoleon took the crowd from the hands of the Pope and put it on his own head, he was saying “No one makes me emperor, I alone have that right”. When Hitler defined the Führerprinzip — placing his word above written law — he was saying “The allegiance of the German people is towards my person, not my position”. Power is to the 1st Will what honey is to the bees, it feeds their entire organism and, for that reason, it cannot be shared, conciliated with anyone else. Julius Caesar made sure to express his own Tsarist character when he said he would rather be first in a small village than second in Rome. We can say, therefore, that power reveals the 1st Will as an uncontrollable dictator that needs the recognition and admiration of the public to feel whole. Representatives of this type in contemporary politics can be found in Donald Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping.

The Noble and collegial love for freedom

If you want to find out what a man is to the bottom, give him power. Any man can stand adversity — only a great man can stand prosperity. It is the glory of Abraham Lincoln that he never abused power only on the side of mercy.

― Robert Ingersol

The 2nd Will, the best side of mankind and of nature, is completely different. The strength of their Will isn’t rigid, but an abundance river of flexibility that doesn’t strive for recognition, fame or any vain aspiration for power. Instead, freedom is what's most cherished for the nobleman. However, they have more than enough will to share, which is why they uphold positions needed by society. They’re dutiful, earnest and giving, and don’t ignore the call of the people when they have the ability to be of use. The 2nd Will is only put in power by heritage or necessity. We can say that they’re psychologically apolitical, but not out of passive indifference. Instead, they have a strong foundation of principles which are thought of as universal, and applied to all no matter the government, party or movement.

Isn’t it curious Pax Romana ended after the reigns of the rational, balanced, democratic Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius? Much later, America's Founding Fathers envised a democratic, liberal, and collegial political imperative for the newborn country, and the Declaration of Independence was composed of a noble and horizontal view of humanity:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The indirect influence of the Bourgeoisie

The 3rd Will was named both philistine and petite (small) bourgeoisie, and these words carry the meaning and relationship they have with power. Originally, the Philistines were an ancient Aegean people who settled in the coastal region of Canaan, and from the perspective of the Israelites, they were consistently depicted as hostile, uncivilized foreigners. The word now means a person who has no interest in, or respect for, art, culture, music, or intellectual pursuits. The petite bourgeoisie is a social class composed of small merchants, business owners that were historically described (in Marxist theory) as a class that aspired to imitate, behave, and look like the haute (high) bourgeoisie, the one that actually possess power and influence in the economic system. These two words lead us to the understand these are people that insists in pretending they're someone they're not, that have no individuality or the strength of nobility nor command, but don't have the weakness to accept their own meeknesss. As Marx wrote:

The democratic petty bourgeois, far from wanting to transform the whole society in the interests of the revolutionary proletarians, only aspire to make the existing society as tolerable for themselves as possible.

The 3rd Will both loves and hates power, and because of their lack of strong character they do not feel legitimized as ruler (contrary to 1st Will), nor do they have a flexible and abundant foundation to commit to ethical principles (contrary to the 2nd Will). Being a bourgeois himself, Machiavelli sought to influence and coordinate power indirectly, with a theoretical approach to societal institutions dynamics, relationships between groups and their leaders, and an attempt at constructing Realpolitik. We have someone that believes power lies in the shadows, where they can safely influence and manipulate things from a position of safety. When they have the opportunity to reach the position of leadership, their lack of firmness produces a flexibility without principles, so concessions are made until instability rises and power is lost (the Russian monarchy and the Soviet Union after the death of Lenin are good examples of this). Being a follower comes easily for this type — responsibility is attributed to the ones above him — though resentment and envy continuously grows.

True power lies in serfdom

Serfdom was a system in medieval and early modern Europe where tenant farmers were bound to work on land under the control of a lord. In this sense, the 4th Will is the reverse of the Tsar, and that makes the divine right to command turn into the right to obey. Power and ambition, like for the 2nd Will, are absent in the Serf. But due to their lack of character, they also lack the foundation and principle to strive for independence. Authority and command are completely lacking for people of this type, and they can only appear in positions of leadership due to coincidence and circumstances such as heritage. A child that pretends to be an adult (3rd Will) can desperately cling to the prospects of command, but a true naive, innocent person (4th Will) only hopes for loyalty and support towards those around them. All we can hope for this mundane, meek person is the authority of their 1st Function, and as much as one can find fashionable, artistic or intellectual Serfs, there won’t be a hint of enough self-esteem for them to be vain.