Perspective
Perspective
Reading history – and philosophy – one cannot help but be struck by the different
views of life and what that entails. It is easy to take the opinion that all the famous
historical movers and shakers, many very bright and knowledgeable, are
manipulators; they really don’t believe what they say, but said it/are saying it to gain
some advantage from having done so – to bring about what they claim to believe.
Among some we have to conclude this is truly the case, but how do we know?
Because someone who has studied it or is an “expert” on it tells us so? And what
is his motivation? That’s what makes history – and politics – so intriguing; we are
constantly learning new things about what happened in the past – and they tend to
be contradictory.
My recent research interest has been into power, what it is and why some people
pursue it so aggressively, and that leads to the broader subject of motivation, a
subject about which much has been written – much of that for the glorification (and
remuneration) of those who do the writing. I have read a lot of it and seen the many
forms it takes – the writing – and like to use Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs as a
starting point. Maslov is no longer in vogue, in fact much ignored today, but his
hierarchy makes a great deal of sense to me. It was presented as a
needs/motivation ladder or stairway in which man (generalization acknowledged)
progresses from the lowest to the highest step, one at a time; the steps are
physiological needs, safety and security needs, social needs (belongingness and
affection), ego needs (self esteem) and self actualization (realization of potential);
stated simply, you can’t think about draining the swamp when you are being
chased by alligators. Over simplified? Perhaps, but it’s a powerful thought
provoker.
To fit that into the subject of this essay I suggest Maslov was alluding to a facet of
what I am calling perspective. People are motivated, and thus influenced, by their
perspective on the matter being confronted, including their location on their
personal needs/motivation ladder; but also on their experiences both personal and
vicarious. That is why it is so difficult to determine the motivation that was in the
mind of a historical figure (or even a current one); perhaps even they didn’t (don’t?)
know for sure, or were deluded from the truth by their subsequent experiences.
What, after all, is truth?
It is not my intention, however, to address motivation per se, but rather a subset
related to my dabblings in the subject of power, to wit a hypothesis of what drives
people to want to achieve at the self actualization level. I am suggesting four words
– concepts – that comprise the objective: power, greed, respect and competition.
First power; why do people seek power. Back to Maslov, the most fundamental
reason has to be for security, to protect one’s self, and of course there are many
ways one must address protecting self today, from physical harm being only the
most primitive. A broader motivation to power is the desire to accomplish
something - or to keep something deemed undesirable to from being
accomplished. Finally there is something called respect: people at all levels desire
to be respected and seek power to ensure they are. We will get to what that means
in a moment.
Next after power there is greed: many, most? of the human race are acquisitive.
Some want things, or the money that buys things, for themselves or their families,
some want them to impress others, and some might want them for the security they
provide. Then there is respect, including Maslov’s social and ego needs. People
want to be respected. For what? Any number of things: talent, strength, cleverness,
humanitarianism, success in almost anything. And fame; don’t forget fame – for
what? It doesn’t really matter, even if it’s known to be fleeting.
Alas, none of these concepts stands alone. Money is power; is the motivation to get
rich greed or lust for power? People who want “things” to impress people gain
respect through so doing, don’t they? And cannot respect yield power? And what of
the despot upon whom attention is lavished, over whom subjects fawn
obsequiously and whose every wish is attended to? It all runs together – or may.
Consider the crusader for a cause who gains the power to achieve goals and
becomes rich in the process. At what point might the cause give way to
overweening and perhaps unreasonable desire for respect? Or more obviously, at
what point do the desire for respect and the fruits of power give way to greed? Who
can tell?
Paul Johnson (Modern Times) uses examples of Hitler and Stalin, neither of which
showed any signs of financial greed. In fact Stalin’s desk was found to be full of
pay envelopes after he died, unopened. Or what of Cornelius Vanderbuilt or
Andrew Carnegie? Arguments can be made in both cases of men who loved
riches but also power, at different times in their career, while demanding respect
throughout. In most historical cases the boundary between greed and lust for
power blurs. Michael Grant (and Seutonius before him) brought this out vividly in
his book, The Twelve Caesars, but something else as well: the desperate need to
cling to power and riches once they have been achieved. Edmund Burke put it quite
succinctly when he said, “those who have once been intoxicated with power and
have derived any kind of emolument (profit) from it, even though but for one year,
can never willingly abandon it.”
But what of the fourth motive: competition? Do people become addicted gamblers
from greed? They may gamble for greed, but addiction is more. Some people have
an overwhelming need to win, and it takes many forms most of which can be
lumped as compulsion. Does greed drive Donald Trump and Lee Iacocca? Sure it
does, but is that all? I don’t think so: both seem to be driven by the success of “the
deal.” Is that not a manifestation of the need for respect? Richard Daley, famous
(or infamous) mayor of Chicago (Boss by Mike Royko); William Tweed, of Tammany
Hall (Boss Tweed by Kenneth D. Ackerman); and Huey Long (Kingfish by Richard
D. White, Jr.) are further interesting examples, all different. Daley never seemed to
have been stricken with Greed, but he loved respect and power. Boss Tweed did
as well, but destroyed himself through his greed. And Long? His greed was
undeniable but his dictatorial lust for power was classic. All three, on the other
hand, would have made a strong case for desire for respect, and all three would
have argued that they worked for the little man. So did Lyndon Johnson (Means of
Ascent by Robert A. Caro), whose lust for power was legendary; but they still talk
almost worshipfully about LBJ bringing power to the Texas Hill Country. And much
of Louisiana remains no less in awe – and respect – of Long and his contribution
to the people of Louisiana.
So how should these men and their motives be judged? How are they judged?
Perspective; theirs, ours and their chroniclers. The lives of powerful men (and
women) are as complex as the men themselves. What drove them? The story of
the blind philosophers and the elephant comes to mind: it depends upon which
part of the elephant with which they are in contact. From what perspective do we
and their chroniclers view them? But perhaps more importantly, for the “who cares
about history?” among us, who cares? What does it matter?
I submit it matters a great deal. For example, both Hitler and Stalin proclaimed to
be socialists, striving for power for the people (as well as the state) and enough
people in Germany and Russia accepted that, but it didn’t turn out very well for the
people. The only reason Donald Trump is still in action is that he owed the banks
so much money they couldn’t afford to let him go under. In the circumstances of
Daley, Tweed and Long there was a constituency that benefited – for a time.
Franklin Roosevelt is revered today as a demigod who brought the country out of
recession, but a different perspective of history suggests a quite contrary
conclusion (Johnson and others). We might not know true motivation, but we are
more likely to be able to determine results. Hitler destroyed Germany and Stalin
destroyed the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics. Can what happened there
happen again? Can another depression such as that which occurred in 1929
occur again? Although steps have been taken to make it more unlikely, and
perhaps less severe, it could. It behooves us to understand the mistakes that have
been made so they will not be made again.
So how do we know we are being led down the primrose path? Perspective:
knowing, as far as it is possible, the perspective of the tyrants who would lead us
astray. In this great age of information it can be gleaned, though sifting – though
more perspective is necessary to get there. And the most important perspectives
have to do with power, greed, respect and competition: what drives the players? To
protect ourselves we must seek to know them.
We must also understand our own perspectives, and realize how they prejudice our
outlook and even our judgment. Socialism appeals to one set of perspectives, but
socialism has proven calamitous in the manifestations in which it has appeared.
Perhaps the greatest challenge to socialism – that is, the sharing and government
control of our resources – is to be able to see beyond short term selfish motives
and understand possible consequences. That requires a lot of perspectives, as
those of each of us are different, and they thus compete. That brings another word
to mind: empathy. “Empathy (is) the ability to put ourselves in the other person’s
shoes and see things from his point of view (Management Minded Supervision by
Bradford B. Boyd). Is that still possible? or are we already to the point where it is
becoming survival of the fittest?
Perspective; God give us perspective; and a little knowledge and understanding
would help too.
Reading history – and philosophy – one cannot help but be struck by the different
views of life and what that entails. It is easy to take the opinion that all the famous
historical movers and shakers, many very bright and knowledgeable, are
manipulators; they really don’t believe what they say, but said it/are saying it to gain
some advantage from having done so – to bring about what they claim to believe.
Among some we have to conclude this is truly the case, but how do we know?
Because someone who has studied it or is an “expert” on it tells us so? And what
is his motivation? That’s what makes history – and politics – so intriguing; we are
constantly learning new things about what happened in the past – and they tend to
be contradictory.
My recent research interest has been into power, what it is and why some people
pursue it so aggressively, and that leads to the broader subject of motivation, a
subject about which much has been written – much of that for the glorification (and
remuneration) of those who do the writing. I have read a lot of it and seen the many
forms it takes – the writing – and like to use Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs as a
starting point. Maslov is no longer in vogue, in fact much ignored today, but his
hierarchy makes a great deal of sense to me. It was presented as a
needs/motivation ladder or stairway in which man (generalization acknowledged)
progresses from the lowest to the highest step, one at a time; the steps are
physiological needs, safety and security needs, social needs (belongingness and
affection), ego needs (self esteem) and self actualization (realization of potential);
stated simply, you can’t think about draining the swamp when you are being
chased by alligators. Over simplified? Perhaps, but it’s a powerful thought
provoker.
To fit that into the subject of this essay I suggest Maslov was alluding to a facet of
what I am calling perspective. People are motivated, and thus influenced, by their
perspective on the matter being confronted, including their location on their
personal needs/motivation ladder; but also on their experiences both personal and
vicarious. That is why it is so difficult to determine the motivation that was in the
mind of a historical figure (or even a current one); perhaps even they didn’t (don’t?)
know for sure, or were deluded from the truth by their subsequent experiences.
What, after all, is truth?
It is not my intention, however, to address motivation per se, but rather a subset
related to my dabblings in the subject of power, to wit a hypothesis of what drives
people to want to achieve at the self actualization level. I am suggesting four words
– concepts – that comprise the objective: power, greed, respect and competition.
First power; why do people seek power. Back to Maslov, the most fundamental
reason has to be for security, to protect one’s self, and of course there are many
ways one must address protecting self today, from physical harm being only the
most primitive. A broader motivation to power is the desire to accomplish
something - or to keep something deemed undesirable to from being
accomplished. Finally there is something called respect: people at all levels desire
to be respected and seek power to ensure they are. We will get to what that means
in a moment.
Next after power there is greed: many, most? of the human race are acquisitive.
Some want things, or the money that buys things, for themselves or their families,
some want them to impress others, and some might want them for the security they
provide. Then there is respect, including Maslov’s social and ego needs. People
want to be respected. For what? Any number of things: talent, strength, cleverness,
humanitarianism, success in almost anything. And fame; don’t forget fame – for
what? It doesn’t really matter, even if it’s known to be fleeting.
Alas, none of these concepts stands alone. Money is power; is the motivation to get
rich greed or lust for power? People who want “things” to impress people gain
respect through so doing, don’t they? And cannot respect yield power? And what of
the despot upon whom attention is lavished, over whom subjects fawn
obsequiously and whose every wish is attended to? It all runs together – or may.
Consider the crusader for a cause who gains the power to achieve goals and
becomes rich in the process. At what point might the cause give way to
overweening and perhaps unreasonable desire for respect? Or more obviously, at
what point do the desire for respect and the fruits of power give way to greed? Who
can tell?
Paul Johnson (Modern Times) uses examples of Hitler and Stalin, neither of which
showed any signs of financial greed. In fact Stalin’s desk was found to be full of
pay envelopes after he died, unopened. Or what of Cornelius Vanderbuilt or
Andrew Carnegie? Arguments can be made in both cases of men who loved
riches but also power, at different times in their career, while demanding respect
throughout. In most historical cases the boundary between greed and lust for
power blurs. Michael Grant (and Seutonius before him) brought this out vividly in
his book, The Twelve Caesars, but something else as well: the desperate need to
cling to power and riches once they have been achieved. Edmund Burke put it quite
succinctly when he said, “those who have once been intoxicated with power and
have derived any kind of emolument (profit) from it, even though but for one year,
can never willingly abandon it.”
But what of the fourth motive: competition? Do people become addicted gamblers
from greed? They may gamble for greed, but addiction is more. Some people have
an overwhelming need to win, and it takes many forms most of which can be
lumped as compulsion. Does greed drive Donald Trump and Lee Iacocca? Sure it
does, but is that all? I don’t think so: both seem to be driven by the success of “the
deal.” Is that not a manifestation of the need for respect? Richard Daley, famous
(or infamous) mayor of Chicago (Boss by Mike Royko); William Tweed, of Tammany
Hall (Boss Tweed by Kenneth D. Ackerman); and Huey Long (Kingfish by Richard
D. White, Jr.) are further interesting examples, all different. Daley never seemed to
have been stricken with Greed, but he loved respect and power. Boss Tweed did
as well, but destroyed himself through his greed. And Long? His greed was
undeniable but his dictatorial lust for power was classic. All three, on the other
hand, would have made a strong case for desire for respect, and all three would
have argued that they worked for the little man. So did Lyndon Johnson (Means of
Ascent by Robert A. Caro), whose lust for power was legendary; but they still talk
almost worshipfully about LBJ bringing power to the Texas Hill Country. And much
of Louisiana remains no less in awe – and respect – of Long and his contribution
to the people of Louisiana.
So how should these men and their motives be judged? How are they judged?
Perspective; theirs, ours and their chroniclers. The lives of powerful men (and
women) are as complex as the men themselves. What drove them? The story of
the blind philosophers and the elephant comes to mind: it depends upon which
part of the elephant with which they are in contact. From what perspective do we
and their chroniclers view them? But perhaps more importantly, for the “who cares
about history?” among us, who cares? What does it matter?
I submit it matters a great deal. For example, both Hitler and Stalin proclaimed to
be socialists, striving for power for the people (as well as the state) and enough
people in Germany and Russia accepted that, but it didn’t turn out very well for the
people. The only reason Donald Trump is still in action is that he owed the banks
so much money they couldn’t afford to let him go under. In the circumstances of
Daley, Tweed and Long there was a constituency that benefited – for a time.
Franklin Roosevelt is revered today as a demigod who brought the country out of
recession, but a different perspective of history suggests a quite contrary
conclusion (Johnson and others). We might not know true motivation, but we are
more likely to be able to determine results. Hitler destroyed Germany and Stalin
destroyed the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics. Can what happened there
happen again? Can another depression such as that which occurred in 1929
occur again? Although steps have been taken to make it more unlikely, and
perhaps less severe, it could. It behooves us to understand the mistakes that have
been made so they will not be made again.
So how do we know we are being led down the primrose path? Perspective:
knowing, as far as it is possible, the perspective of the tyrants who would lead us
astray. In this great age of information it can be gleaned, though sifting – though
more perspective is necessary to get there. And the most important perspectives
have to do with power, greed, respect and competition: what drives the players? To
protect ourselves we must seek to know them.
We must also understand our own perspectives, and realize how they prejudice our
outlook and even our judgment. Socialism appeals to one set of perspectives, but
socialism has proven calamitous in the manifestations in which it has appeared.
Perhaps the greatest challenge to socialism – that is, the sharing and government
control of our resources – is to be able to see beyond short term selfish motives
and understand possible consequences. That requires a lot of perspectives, as
those of each of us are different, and they thus compete. That brings another word
to mind: empathy. “Empathy (is) the ability to put ourselves in the other person’s
shoes and see things from his point of view (Management Minded Supervision by
Bradford B. Boyd). Is that still possible? or are we already to the point where it is
becoming survival of the fittest?
Perspective; God give us perspective; and a little knowledge and understanding
would help too.
All well and good. I have
defended my position - but not
addressed the dangerous pitfall:
age related prejudice. Standing
out from the gloom is a great
deal to admire. All current art is
not bad; all entertainment is not
disgusting. It ain't all negative. I
must keep reminding myself of
that - and resisting
curmudgeonist prejudice to
automatic negativity.
It is, unfortunately, very difficult for
me to do that, as those that know
me are painfully aware.
To me: don't give up!!
defended my position - but not
addressed the dangerous pitfall:
age related prejudice. Standing
out from the gloom is a great
deal to admire. All current art is
not bad; all entertainment is not
disgusting. It ain't all negative. I
must keep reminding myself of
that - and resisting
curmudgeonist prejudice to
automatic negativity.
It is, unfortunately, very difficult for
me to do that, as those that know
me are painfully aware.
To me: don't give up!!