Skip to content

Morgan Scott Peck, Psychiatrist/Author, 1978

To confront or criticize is a form of exercising leadership or power. The exercise of power is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to influence the course of events, human or otherwise, by one’s actions in a consciously or unconsciously predetermined manner. When we confront or criticize someone it is because we want to change the course of the person’s life. It is obvious that there are many other, often superior, ways to influence the course of events than by confrontation or criticism: by example, suggestion, parable, reward and punishment, questioning, prohibition or permission, creation of experiences, organizing with others, and so on. Volumes can be written about the art of exercising power. For our purposes, however, suffice it to say that loving individuals must concern themselves with this art, for if one desires to nurture another’s spiritual growth, then one must concern oneself with the most effective way to accomplish this in any given instance. Loving parents, for example, must first examine themselves and their values stringently before determining accurately that they know what is best for their child. Then, having made this determination, they also have to give greater thought to the child’s character and capacities before deciding whether the child would be more likely to respond favorably to confrontation than to praise or increased attention or storytelling or some other form of influence. To confront someone with something he or she cannot handle will at best be a waste of time, and likely will have a deleterious effect. If we want to be heard we must speak in a language the listener can understand and on a level at which the listener is capable of operating. If we are to love we must extend ourselves to adjust our communication to the capacities of our beloved.

It is clear that exercising power with love requires a great deal of work, but what is this about the risk involved? The problem is that the more loving one is, the more humble one is; yet the more humble one is, the more one is awed by the potential for arrogance in exercising power. Who am I to influence the course of human events? By what authority am I entitled to decide what is best for my child, spouse, my country or the human race? Who gives me the right to dare to believe in my own understanding and then to presume to exert my will upon the world? Who am I to play God? That is the risk. For whenever we exercise power we are attempting to influence the course of the world, of humanity, and we are thereby playing God. Most parents, teachers, leaders - most of us who exercise power - have no cognizance of this. In the arrogance of exercising power without the total self-awareness demanded by love, we are blissfully but destructively ignorant of the fact that we are playing God. But those who truly love, and therefore work for the wisdom that love requires, know that to act is to play God. Yet they also know that there is no alternative except inaction and impotence. Love compels us to play God with full consciousness of the enormity of the fact that that is just what we are doing. With this consciousness the loving person assumes the responsibility of attempting to be God and not to carelessly play God, to fulfill God’s will without mistake. We arrive, then, at yet another paradox: only out of the humility of love can humans dare to be God.

- Morgan Scott Peck

Excerpt from his book The Road Less Traveled, 1978

Suggested by Mark Uzmann

One Comment

  1. Ian wrote:

    This is an interesting choice to connect to art theory. Peck’s book is mainly theory on psychiatry, love and sort of new age spirituality, but things like this do seem to touch on thoughts about creative acts.

    Often the idea of creation could be brought close to the idea of a God character, and people also often create art as a critique of society, a way of communicating their views. Even if art isn’t a direct critique of something that someone views as wrong, much of aesthetically driven art could be said to be an image of an ideal world or situation.

    Peck mentions “the art of exercising power.” Although he often refers to things as “art” in his book - such as practicing the art of psychiatry, etc - this specific reference reminds me of Nietzsche’s belief that the height of power was in the creative act. His idea of an ubermensch was Goethe, a poet. Definitely a far cry from money or violence oriented thoughts we tend to associate with “power.”

    Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 1:29 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.