Yesterday, I had a talk with my dad about the ideas of power and money. I suddenly came to the realization that power, like money, is also derived from the control of resources such as land, food, and other essentials. Before, I had thought of power as a very simple thing that could only be bought or earned through social connections.
When I thought about power a little more, I thought of American Indian society (or at least my limited knowledge of it). Before the philosophy of Manifest Destiny became commonplace and the white man moved out west to conquer the prairie and escape the crowded Eastern cities, Native Americans had control over their vast domain. Land, food, and water were plentiful. They had complete control over their lives; they had power.
Similarly, British nobility gained immense power because England is a relatively isolated nation with limited resources. Their people gave them the reigns of their nation because the kings and queens had control over the necessities for the Britons' lives and livelihood.
This was the first time that I thought of power in a supply-and-demand sense. It gave me a clearer view of what power is and how it affects politics.
When applied to modern politics, especially regarding international affairs, the theory of power's inverse relationship with resources is incredibly useful. A rapid decline in resources instantly creates a power vacuum that is eventually filled by whomever controls the resources, while a rapid incline in resources causes powers-that-be to lose control. These fundamentals allow for well-crafted foreign policy and simplified solutions for complex problems. In my eyes, the United States is an example of a successful democracy because of the expansive amount of resources that are available to its citizens, natural, human, and otherwise. The government is powerful, but it is driven by the efforts of its approximately 300 million citizens. In America, the people have the exclusive power to control their environment. In a country with limited access to resources however, individuals tend to considerably less powerful. In North Korea, the monarchical government regulates nearly all of the necessities that its people need to survive, the most notable of which is information. Such tight regulation has given Kim Jong Un and his closest confidants an almost incomprehensible amount of control of their people while the North Korean general public is starved not only of their food, but of their rights as well. These differences in individual power potential cause civilizations to clash and citizens to break free from their governments. Differences in power make colossal waves that shake every nation.
We do not always have control over our access to food, water, oil, and land, but we can take advantage of the often ignored resource that is information. This is what I hope to accomplish with this blog. By gaining control of information, we can ultimately become more powerful and able to make a significant impact on society.
After all, knowledge is power.
Hmm, that's a new perspective on power, but it makes a lot of sense when one thinks about it. However, I'd very sincerely debate the claim that America is a successful democracy because there aren't really people more powerful than others. I think there's a little bit more to power than resources. It's a matter of how one obtains their resources isn't it? North Koreans lack in power not because there is a severe lack of resources available in North Korea, but because there are select people who have control over them, and more importantly, because power is also about the ability to take lives - either by force or by charisma. Anyways, very thoroughly written out. Good job. :)
ReplyDeleteI was a little unclear on my idea of power and how it relates to the United States, and I will change my post accordingly. I meant that individual Americans have more power than people of other nations because they have equal access to the things that they need to survive and maintain their livelihood. In contrast, North Koreans generally have little power because they have little control of their environment; the government controls their environment. Also, I agree with you about the ability to take lives as a force that contributes to a nation's power. Humans can be seen as capital and as a resource. Thanks for your feedback.
ReplyDelete