The Evolution of Power

    Throughout human history, the rapid pace of development has left generations of individuals questioning the extent of their power over circumstance and fate. As technological and cultural innovations have flourished, the individual’s perception of their role in the world has also evolved. Within the Romantic era, humanity is often displayed as powerless to resist the strength of nature. In later years, many Modernist thinkers often portray the individual as primarily concerned with the preservation of the self. With the rise of Post-Modernism, mankind increasingly becomes aware of the effects of his actions on the entire society, and a single life becomes a key figure within the global community. As these movements progress historically, the individual transitions from a powerless victim to asserting influence on a global scale, realizing along the way violent self-preservation leads only to chaos. Not only does this shift mark a drastic change in the perceived influence of the person, it also bears important implications for society.

    Perhaps the clearest theme within Romantic writing is the lack of human influence over a confusing and complicated world. Often, the future is portrayed as being at the mercy of processes beyond human control. This is illustrated in Johann Wolfgang Goethe’s Romantic poem “Erlking,” in which a young boy flees a mysterious entity. As the poem opens, the child is clearly threatened by the Erlking, who tempts him with promises of comfort and security (194). The father seems to ignore this threat, either from disbelief or in the hopes of comforting his child. Though it is clear that the boy is frightened, the father claims that “its only old willows gleaming so grey” (194). By the end, the Erlking has captured the boy, and the father “arrives home with pain and dread; in his arms the child was dead” (194). Throughout the piece, the Erlking is portrayed as a ghoulish natural force with power over of life and death. Indeed, the word “Erlking” is Danish for “king of the elves,” and in German, “Erle” is a term used to describe forest plants (194). As a natural force, the Erlking becomes an intermediary for a seemingly larger cosmic fate. The father seems unable (or unwilling) to recognize this, and despite his attempts to dismiss the phantom, he is powerless in the face of the Erlking. With this poem, Goethe emphasizes what cannot be ignored; namely, that dismissing the inevitability of death will not make this reality disappear. The best we can do is resist for as long as possible, though in the end even the most innocent is not safe from nature’s power. No matter where we try to hide, we are defenseless and entirely incapable of changing our fate. Our inability to control our future becomes a defining part of being human, and is as inescapable as death. To many, this idea becomes angering, sparking a desire to exert control over a frightening future.

    With passing time, the Romantic notion of helplessness grows into a new perception of mankind. From within the Modernist movement, the individual emerges as the guardian of his own fate, with little emphasis placed on the rest of society, and human power becomes focused on survival. In “Rashomon,” Akutugawa Ryunosuke emphasizes this idea while also noting its implications. As a poor servant sits under a city gate contemplating his future, he is surrounded by a city which has been “visited by a series of calamities, earthquakes, whirlwinds and fires” (208). Despite this, he refuses to accept defeat, and his mind fills with “helpless incoherent thoughts protesting an inexorable fate” (209). Though his situation appears hopeless, he refuses to surrender to nature’s oppression and decides to become a thief (209). While the Romantic may have simply yielded in the face of destruction, something drives him to fight on. To him, his circumstances necessitate immoral behavior, because “if he chose honest means, he would undoubtedly starve to death...”(209). He soon discovers an elderly woman plucking hair from corpses, and though initially repulsed, listens as she defends her actions. To her, survival is the ultimate display of human power. Scolding his naiveté, she states that “making whigs out of the hair of the dead may seem a great evil to you, but these that are here deserve no better” (211). By telling of the dead woman before her (who once sold snake meat pretending it was fish), she illuminates the universality of self preservation, stating that “what she did couldn’t be wrong, because if she hadn’t, she would have starved to death” (211). The woman whose hair she now removes would not be angered because she also did what was necessary to preserve herself. Each person does what he must to survive, as those before have done; anything becomes justifiable when survival is in question. As the servant listens, all doubts vanish as he realizes that to live he must adopt this philosophy (211). As the servant robs her of her meager possessions, the old woman’s words betray her through his act of desperation (211). In deep contrast with the Romantic image of helplessness, the servant becomes united with humanity through his self preservation, and any concern for others is cast aside as he asserts control over his own circumstances. Akutugawa demonstrates the cycle of survival, as the elderly woman is left facing “...only darkness...unknowing and unknown” (211).  The servant has traded her his uncertainty to better himself, leaving her helpless. We are left to wonder if some day, he too will fall victim to an individual seeking to mitigate their suffering. This perception of human power leaves mankind locked in an endless struggle, each passing his misfortune like a virus in order to guarantee his own future.

    Within the framework of societal development, the individual slowly evolves from a powerless observer to an active defender of his own well-being. Yet the tumultuous twentieth century soon demonstrates that a world centered on selfishness can only lead to suffering. It is in response to this that the Post-Modern definition of mankind’s power develops. Within this movement, the individual becomes increasingly aware of his responsibility to the society. In this vein, Hannah Arendt, in “Organized Guilt,” forces us to examine ourselves with the mirror of society’s wrongdoings. Her argument is rooted in the corruptibility of human nature, yet she recognizes our ability to overcome this pitfall. She frames these ideas by asserting that the blame for the German atrocities of the second World War lie not only with lunatic politicians, but with the everyday German citizen. To her, the common man is supremely guilty because “...for the sake of his pension, his life insurance, the security of his wife and children, such a man was ready to sacrifice his beliefs, his honor, and his human dignity” (2109). Through his attempts to guard the well-being of his family, the German citizen neglected the power he held to rise against evil. Arendt recognizes that within each of us is the ability to shape the world, but emphasizes that this can only be used for good once we accept that mistakes are the fault of the entire society. Only to those who “are filled with a genuine fear for the inescapable guilt of the human race, can there be any reliance when it comes to fighting fearlessly...against the incalculable evil that men are capable of bringing about” (2112). In perhaps the strongest contrast to Romanticism, man becomes supreme commander of his own fate, as well as that of his peers. This idea gives the individual the power, and responsibility, to determine the fate of society, but Arendt warns that this must be accompanied by accepting that each of us can fall victim to selfishness. The starting point must be a recognition of “...what man is capable-and this is indeed the precondition of any modern political thinking” (2111). The responsibility lies only with us, and evil results from our failure to use our strength responsibly. In addition, the emphasis on self-preservation seen previously is offered as a warning, for this desire has lead to history’s greatest atrocities. Mankind can only use his power for good once he has accepted his own fallibility.

    In every age, humans have sought to understand their significance in the face of a daunting, unknown future. Accompanying this are feelings of powerlessness and despair, which lead many to desperately guard their own interests. In recent years, violent conflict has lead to the realization that a stable society depends upon an awareness of the individual’s role as one voice among many. Upon examining the historical origins of this idea, a trend emerges which marks the evolution of the individual’s perception of his own power. From the Romantic era to the Post-Modern society, the average citizen has risen from a helpless child to assume the responsibility of crafting a harmonious society. Along the way, this newly discovered power becomes misguided and selfish, but as time passes this reality rears its ugly head. No longer are we a lonely body floating in an angry sea; we must now accept our potential. With this progression blossoms a sense of hope rooted in the possibility that each of us can influence the world for the better. By heeding the warnings of the past, we may continue to guarantee a stable and successful future for generations to come.