Powerlessness and its role conflict

In the first of these 3 articles, I explored different ways of understanding power and its relation to conflict.  Here I examine the experience of powerlessness.

In conflict, experiences of powerlessness are commonplace, of being vulnerable and unable to defend oneself and these trigger suppressed feelings of learned helplessness which compound and distort the impact and the challenge of dealing with the immediate emotional response and power imbalance. 

We live in the midst of power dynamics and flows that we often cannot see or are at best partially aware, whether these be the manipulations of an alcoholic partner or power-plays in the boardroom.  The more we become aware of them and how we are in relation to them the better able we are to navigate a satisfactory way through them or even learn to harness them.  Experiences of powerlessness are endemic in society though we often ignore or deny them until they come to the surface during conflict.

When it comes to sorting out conflict the more powerful person or group get to call the shots over-riding the goals, values or interests of the less powerful.  It is in conflict that the power hierarchies become more apparent. The parent intervenes and sorts out the conflict between the squabbling children, the boss decides on the solution to the struggle between employees or functions if they cannot sort it between themselves.  The party with the most resources in litigation can win through by burning up the resources of the opposition and forcing capitulation - not on the merits of the case but on their ability to drag out and make continuing the litigation too costly. 

We grow up in the context of power imbalances: as children we are more likely to have been the less powerful and therefore at the mercy of power abuse.  For the most part this will have been counterbalanced by love and care and wise exercise of power by adults who have charge over us.  In time most of us grow beyond dependency and subordination to the will of adults, but there are many who for different reasons fail to  reach a sufficient level of independence which leaves them vulnerable to further subordination or domination especially when in conflict. 

During childhood many spend considerable time in learning how to cope with or protect themselves from those in positions of power who use, misuse or abuse their power in a conscious or, more often, in an unconscious manner.  Abuse of power can take the form of emotional abuse such as shame, guilt induction, ridicule and coercion, or more seriously, physical, or sexual abuse.  If there is no outside protection, it is difficult for the young person to defend against such abuse when the power differential is so great and the child's resources are so small. 

Often the first challenge is for the person or group of lower power to transcend their own learned helplessness, passivity and victim-hood; to begin to recognise that imbalance of, abuse or misuse of power does not have to continue; to believe that they can challenge the subordination and subjugation.  If the imbalance of power is not too wide this may happen quickly and easily.  If it is too great this awareness and commitment may only occur when the deprivation or suffering that arises from the abuse of power becomes so intolerable that they have nothing to loose by rebelling.

Domination, whether by force, persuasion, manipulation or being frightening, is not accepted easily by mature adults.  When someone is put-down, the natural reaction, when recognised, is to resist such attempts to dominate.  We react against the violation of our values, the deprivation of our freedom, the interference with our goals and aspirations.  We feel anger and are motivated to defend our beliefs, territories, reputations, etc. against intrusion and subordination.  However for some, the assertion of one's rights, needs or boundaries may be too frightening to contemplate. 

The second major challenge is for the less powerful is to equalise the power imbalance though more often than not the striving is to reverse the dynamic and become the most powerful so that they are in control and can protect or even subordinate the other.  This dynamic of equalising or reversing the power balance can often displace resolution of the issues in conflict as the core of the conflict.  The power struggle becomes paramount: the resolution of the issues a reflection of who won the power struggle rather than what was the best solution.

Mulder's research suggests that people try to extend the distance (power differential) between themselves and those who have less power while trying to narrow the gap between themselves and those who have more power.  In power struggles, the more powerful tends to stamp out or block forcefully any attempts by the less powerful to close the distance.  The intention is usually to use more force than is necessary to try and ensure they will not try again.

The less powerful person feels dependent on but also threatened by the more powerful.  A simultaneous envy/hate relationship exists which drives the subservient cloying behaviour.   In situations where the power differential is perceived to be small by the less powerful they may try to challenge or equalise power in reality - this can be a costly exercise especially if they loose the ensuing battle.  The less powerful person is more likely to have less confidence, to be anxious and less forceful in their equalisation attempts.  The closer the power differential, the more likely an attempt to equalise will take place and this is often when the conflict becomes more visible.  If the differential is too large the person with least power tends to withdraw rather than risk further loss.

The dispossessed and disenfranchised become passive, afraid to risk the costs of equalisation attempts, and tend to become apathetic, powerless victims.  There are limits however, and when the powerless have nothing left to loose they become reckless, seek revenge and become persecutors and attack where the powerful are most vulnerable and cannot defend themselves as in covert sabotage or terrorist attack.  If they cannot win they will make their loss as costly as possible for the victor.  Alternatively they may unite with others and find strength in numbers as a way of equalising power or they may use a stronger outside power to rebalance power where this is an option.

Some people will deny or minimise the power differential and avoid the consequences by suppressing their awareness and feeling responses to domination, not challenging but remaining and exploiting dependency, becoming compliant or obedient, telling themselves that this is reality and it cannot be changed.  But people are far more bent on equalisation of power than they realise.  They will pretend or feel equal in their imaginations if it is too threatening in reality but may be shocked when the powerful walk away with the spoils, ignore them, or distance themselves making the less powerful loose face at critical moments.  They may secretly boil at the injustice, have violent dreams, be reluctant to believe what the powerful person to whom they are subservient and dependant just did to them but may also also hold a grudge and wait for the chance to retaliate without suffering the consequences.

The less powerful can become chameleons, adapters, and often forget or do not clarify what is important to them.  What they seek or get depends on what is available or what they are given.  They become opportunistic and may seem fickle though this is more likely to be a way of avoiding costly power struggles, punishment or failure, of having to face up to the crippling effects of their own powerlessness.  It is easier to complain, blame, the more powerful for the unsatisfactory state of their lives than risk another self-esteem damaging experience of self-assertion.   Easier to take out the pent up rage and frustration on those even less powerful, become power abusers themselves, give themselves the illusion of being powerful if even for a moment, rather than deal with the fear, the self hate and the oppression.  In this way power abuse becomes self-perpetuating until something is done to break the cycle.

Power and its abuse thus becomes a shadow, something we may be unaware of, hide individually and collectively, something we are ashamed of, something we deny doing after a while.  To survive power abuse we cut ourselves off from our own suffering and vulnerability as well as that of others.  Hiding our hurt, repressing our fear, forgetting our humiliation may have provided a buffer against the abuse we ourselves have suffered, a way of not giving the abuser the satisfaction of seeing us annihilated, a way of preserving some sense of dignity.  But such self-protective repression of feeling and experience cuts us of from our vulnerability and suffering and closing the doors of our empathy and compassion thus increasing the likelihood of our becoming power abusers ourselves.

We do not want to be seen in this state of vulnerability but the threat of exposure, of loosing face, of being seen as inadequate, full of sound and fury but impotent, is very high.  Past experiences are unconsciously transferred into and become conflated with present reality and the experience can be overwhelming or even paralysing.  Over-reaction is commonplace triggering unwarranted defensiveness, attack and escalation of the conflict.  In this state we are reluctant to talk about the state of dysfunctionality; the real state of affairs is too painful to dwell upon and we are not sure that we trust anybody enough to not exacerbate or take advantage if we risked exposing our vulnerable state.  Better to keep our head down, don't rock the boat - it is not worth it!

The consequences of the dependence arising from too little power and learned helplessness is irresponsibility, blaming, complaining mindsets, scapegoating, impulsive reactions and opportunistic revenge attacks, not to mention the guilt, shame and silence that comes with the cover up of impotence, the anxiety and procrastination, fear of rejection and lack of trust, compliance and dread of taking risks that may result in ones position to deteriorating even further.  The illusory expectations of security or protection that usually drives such dependence, compliance and servitude inevitably seems like betrayal when they are not delivered.

Facing up to our sense of powerlessness, helplessness and inappropriate dependence is often a significant developmental challenge and one better faced before we find it triggered in the midst of a conflict situation where it can be so disabling and damaging.  The reality for most of us, however, is that this is precisely when we become aware of it, paralysed by it and when we are least able to understand what is happening to us.  The good news is that experiences of helplessness or powerlessness are normal and natural part of living in the world and growing and that even compounded feelings of powerlessness and learned helplessness can be reversed and replaced with a self-reinforcing sense of efficacy.

In the next issue we ask: Can we exercise power without dominating? Can we share power? Can we exercise power in ways that do not subordinate?