The Tragedy of Power by David O.

Power, in it's institutionalized form, is a cancer upon the collective freedoms of the persons from whom it derives its social legitimacy. Institutional and Personal power are not only distinct from one another in character but are at cross purposes and in direct conflict with one another with ultimately socially dissimilar interests. While personal power seeks to increase the degree of control which an individual and popular collectivity have upon their persons and immediate environment in a manner as dynamic as the individuals concerned, institutionalized power seeks to countermine these efforts in the name of its own self-perpetuation. It is impersonal and mechanical in it's approach. When institutional power is challenged, it reacts in the manner which most expediently restores or increases the degree of its control upon society. When institutional power is unchallenged it responds in the manner which most expediently restores or increases the degree of its control upon society. The question is not how power responds to challenges, but rather what the alternative there is to challenging power under such circumstances. According to Economist William Dugger (1980, pp. 897-907) to understand the institutional nature of power one must ask the following questions. 1) Why do individuals who are often stronger and smarter than the leaders of society obey those leaders? 2) How are people within our society motivated in terms of their ideals, ends and means? The institutional structure of society is, for Dugger, the answer to both of these questions. The nature of power over people within our society is predicated upon the acceptance of the legitimacy of that power and of the motivations, ideals, scope of reasonable goal valuations and scope of reasonable means whereby one may approach those goals. Deviation from any of these, whether intentional or not, works to undermine the framework of institutional power. Institutional power is, subsequently, under the constant threat of harassment from the numerous hordes of persons armed with deviant perspectives. These perspectives may range from those challenging the means of approaching socially legitimated goals to challenges to what constitutes a socially legitimate goal to what is a socially legitimate ideal or motivation. the ultimate challenge to power is to challenge the legitimacy of the institutional structure of social power itself. In all of these cases, however, power responds in the only manner it knows how. The American complexion of power can be summarized as constituted by institutions of Economic, Educational, Military, Familial Kinship, Political and Religious power. One need not engage in an exhaustive examination of these axes of power to note the relationship between personal and institutional power in each of them. Upon any closer examination of these institutions it becomes clearer that personal power is subsumed by the institutional structure of power. This is true whether in matters ranging from: the subhuman condition allotted to the penniless within our society multimillionaires enthralled by their professions and ultimately unfree from the work of maintaining their position; from the purveyor of established knowledge to the pioneering examiner of new frontiers of human understanding (in so far as they can be explored through the unclear lenses of the present limits of our knowledge); from the seeker of the defense of a land and its people against all enemies foreign and domestic to those who would utilize the means of defense to forcibly control all lands and people foreign and domestic as a matter of making the job of security just a little bit easier; From the normativist who maintains the social sanctity of their familial structure to those who would deviate from standard familial structures through methods deemed counter-cultural due to matters of race, gender, number or total lack of blood relation; from the elected official who cannot act against the perceived "will" of his constituents to the voters who cannot chose but to vote against the strongest among those they oppose; or from the pauper parishioner who believes that the ills of their destitution can be salved by their faith to the cardinal held captive by the confines of cannon and cathedral. What is less clear is how institutional power seeks to destroy personal power. For a more clear examination of this, let's turn to two examples within recent history: The United States' war against terrorism and The FBI's Operation Fast and Furious.

The war against terrorism is a prime example of the attempt by institutional power structures to restore or increase the degree of its control upon society. Whatever the catalyst of the war against terrorism, the strategy and tactics implemented to prosecute it are a continuation of strategies and tactics which existed prior to its catalysis. Whether it be through the abrogation of the civil freedom of privacy, suspension of habeas corpus through extraterritorial means and the forcible seizure of property (including almost the entire Somali banking system) as enshrined in the USA PATRIOT act or through the martial methods applied to controlling the political discourse within the nations of Afghanistan, the Philippines and North Africa (Operation Enduring Freedom), Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom), or Greece and the Mediterranean (Operation Active Endeavor) in order to reflect a political narrative more conducive to the smooth functioning of American institutional imperatives, control has certainly been reinforced, if not increased. This has been done at the cost of countless human lives. Operation fast and furious was a recent sting operation in 2009 and 2010 set up by the BAFTE as part of the wider Project Gunrunner, which sought to stem the flow of weapons into Mexico from the United States. The intended purpose of the operation was to allow straw-purchasers (individuals purchasing items as an intermediary for those who cannot to so whether due to legal or other reasons) to purchase weapons in the united states and ship them to Mexico so that these weapons could be tracked to build a better case against Mexican drug cartels. While the end result of the Gunwalker scandal are still being worked out, it is irrelevant to this examination. The methodology employed here by the BATFE is very telling. The ATF, in order to reinforce it's institutional imperative (in this case, the imperative of controlling the flow of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, all ostensibly legal items in the United States) essentially created a problem so that it would have another problem to fix. It not only did so in a manner that Attorney General Eric holder has since declared "flawed in its concept and flawed in its execution," but in a manner which threatened the lives of countless Mexicans, at least one US border patrolman (Brian Terry) and could have potentially cost the livelihoods of the many firearms sellers who were often threatened with sanction if they failed to comply with sales they themselves thought to be suspicious. Very little of these cases or many similar forms of repression of personal power engaged in by the powerful institutions within our society are due primarily to the corruption or incompetence of the individuals within the institutions, per se. It is rather the case that power, in its institutionalized form acts autonomically to defend its interest. The interest of power is always more power. The question is not what institutional power does when their power is challenged. It is historically evident that power will find new challenges to overcome where none presently arise independently. The question is what people must do in response to the zombie of institutional power if they wish to remain alive. Power in it's institutionalized form presents a danger to the lifeblood, well being and personal freedom of everyone within society as an individual and in collectivity. If we do not challenge the institutions which manifest power for powers sake within our society, our alternatives are slavery and death.

Sources:
Dugger, William M. 1980. "Power: An Institutional Framework of Analysis". Journal of Economic Issues. 14 (4): 897-907. 107th Congress. 2001. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) act Hennessey, Kathleen. 2011. "Senate Grills Atty. Gen. Eric Holder on Gun-trafficking Sting" Los Angeles Times NRA-ILA. 2011. Hearing On And Furious Uncovers Serious Failure at BATFE <http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6927>. Fast