There is only power

[chthonia9 <chthonicdancer@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 48352

Bloubet wrote:
B> (all IMHO, of course) Power is a tool. You can have
B> good and evil, and also have power. [snip] Power is 
B> neutral. Seeking power is not evil. Power can be used 
B> for good, and can be obtained without hurting yourself 
B> or anyone else.

and Alexander replied: 

A> Questionable, of course. Tolkien was quite adamant
A> at it: Power *is* Evil. Then there's "power corrupts"
A> theory, which I consider absolutely correct [snip]
A>
A> As for belief that power can be obtained without
A> hurting anyone else, I find that absolutely improbable.
A> Power is power, and there's not unlimited amount of
A> it, and whichever power exists, it already belongs to
A> someone

to which bloubet responded:
B> [snip] I agree that power *can* corrupt, but not that
B> it always does. Gandhi and Mother Theresa come to
B> mind. There have been many powerful individuals who
B> didn't abuse their power and weren't corrupted by it,
B> IMHO. I think the key may be that the *desire* for
B> power, in and of itself, is likely to corrupt or be
B> perceived as evil. People like Gandhi were seeking other
B> goals and, in their search, acquired power -- which they
B> then used for good.

It depends on your view of power.  I like Starhawk's distinction (in 
her book `Truth or Dare') between `power-over', linked to domination, 
manipulation and control; `power-with' – social power, the influence 
wielded among equals - and `power-from-within', linked to our deepest 
abilities and potentials.

It is power-over that is usually considered `power' in the Western 
mindset, and guess this is what Alexander is referring to. IMO it is 
power-over that corrupts (though it *can* be used wisely – Dumbledore 
certainly has `power-over' the students, for example), and where 
relationships are defined by hierarchies of dominance, there *is* a 
finite pool of power.  Gandhi and Mother Theresa developed strong 
power-from-within, and as a result gained respect and therefore 
influence (`power-with').  I agree that it is desire for power in 
itself that is likely to lead to `evil' – if the desirers goals were 
likely to garner support

In the Potterverse, I believe we see a clash of power-over and power-
with.  Voldemort and his supporters thrive by wielding the tools of 
power-over: fear and violence (Voldemort in the cemetery scene in 
GoF, Lucius in his intimidation (not persuasion) of the Board of 
Governors in CoS, Draco using the implied threats of Crabbe, Goyle 
and his father, Death Eaters using the Dark Mark to spread terror).  
Dumbledore's power in the WW, on the other hand, is `power-with' – he 
is asked for advice because people respect his abilities and 
judgement.  We also see this in the relationships between the Trio – 
suggestions are made and accepted on merit; persuasion is based 
on `what is right' rather than `who I am' or `what I can do to you.'

Power-from-within is IMO what gives someone the ability to throw off 
Imperius, or to be a powerful witch.  I'm not sure whether this sort 
of power is neutral – one's deepest abilities can be used for good or 
evil (Riddle/Voldemort must have had plenty of power-from-within), 
though IRL I tend to assume that it's not possible to reach one's 
fullest potential in the corrupting service of power-over...

Chthonia