Machiavellian, Orwellianism, Snollygoster and Power

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli the 14th-15th century Italian diplomat wrote 'the Prince' and is infamously associated with the term "Machiavellian" for people who justify any means to keep power. Machiavelli may have been misunderstood in history. Though his subject matter interest was his treatise on 'power' on how to keep it any cost using any plan, schemes tyranny (moral or immoral) advocated rules in power on how to consolidate, keep 'power' and bring order to a State; However Machiavelli subject matter also inherently exposed what an absolute despot or an authoritarian ruler could do to serve himself at the cost of the citizens of the state. Shakespeare might have been

responsible for coining the term "Machiavel" to refer the unscrupulous character who mischievously devises plans to gain power and achieve the means to influence his schemes to achieve whatever the end objectives.  Machiavelli at the end of his life stated that people should learn and be aware of hell if they ever want to avoid it. Machiavelli himself was exiled from his role in society for opposing absolute power, however unluckily for his work, the term has stuck in common vernacular as to something negative. In the religious wars of Europe, the church often blamed his work as a manual for rulers to do justify their actions to maintain power.

Eric Blair the 19th-century writer known under his pen name George Orwell wrote '1984' a book that has popularized the term "Orwellianism" which again is a wrongly understood term. People often associate Orwellianism with regimes or forms of Govt and organizations that want to control and monitor the actions of their citizens or workers of the state in order to have complete authority over their lives. This extended to bombarding propaganda that influenced its citizens' way of thinking and acting.  This actually is not Orwellianism in its true definition as a form of governance and should be referred correctly as 'Authoritarian'. George Orwell however through his work was warning his readers against the usage of words (which influence ideas & norms of behavior) & language with its dangers of embedded euphemisms. This is as he calls it double-speak ways or means where something else is propounded as action or meaning other than the words and their true meaning. Orwell warned of the cognitive dissonance that can be caused by altering the meaning and practice of something all the while using the terms that they don't really stand for. Orwell in his essay 'Politics & the English Language' warns us about the deceptive and manipulative use of language.  In his work '1984' the nation-state of 'Oceania'  has various ministries like the ''Ministry of Peace'  where people are violated with stringent punishments, which actually is the military, 'Ministry of Love' where political prisoners are actually put in Joycamps. The Populus is bombarded with propaganda made up of historical facts and statistics manipulated controlled by the 'Ministry of Truth' corrupting the ideas and true facts.  This might sound totalitarianism but Orwell warns us of this happening in perfectly elected democratic societies, well-governed organizations (profit or non-profit) even with truly altruistic value systems.  If we do not pay careful attention to the usage of words & their perception of meaning and its narrative language used we fall victim to a society or an organization that degrades and erodes over time. It's then the mandate for leadership to be careful with the usage of words to manage the flow of power its perception and the tremendous social responsibility it carries for leaders. 

I recently heard of a particular word 'Snollygoster' and is quickly becoming one favorite words in my favorite word list. When said with a British accent its sounds cool and a little fun to express in proper King's English. In short, a Snollygoster is a dishonest politician, Mark Forsyth in a TEDx parliament talk refers to a 19th-century newspaper editor who defined Snollygoster more as a fellow who seeks office regardless of a party, platform or principle who when he/she wins gets to power uses sheer force of monumental talknophical assumancy" . I honestly tried looking up the word 'talknophical' but couldn't find its meaning. Using words to express obscure or new emotions associated with them or making up new words is a topic for another post. But words definitely help shape power and power and reality definitely shape the usage or creation of words. Talking of power when the new democracy of the United States was formed the founding fathers debated on various titles for the new head of the state. A three-week debate couldn't resolve the matter between the house of representatives who brought up the term 'President' to the Senate. They agreed to accept the term temporarily instead of that of a "King" or "Chief" or "Protector of the People's Liberty and rights" in case Washingon or his successors would get drunk with power. They also felt the term 'President' was also a little bit weirder and would not give him the respect with other heads of state as it merely referred to the one who presides over meetings. Surprisingly the term to date is still not endorsed by the Government of the United States.  Interestingly, we know the term 'President of the United States" refers to an office of power so much so that 147 nations have adopted the term 'President' as a word chosen to equate their "Head of State".  Words, titles, reality shape, and influence power. Reality and power also shape usage and formation of words and sometimes the creation of new words. 

Reading power accurately is a must, exercising and influencing power for leaders is a given and as leaders how we use it with words even more important. We are usually uncomfortable talking about power in a democratic society or in our capitalistic 'be nice' to people organizations.  However, we need to know and be aware of it and where it comes from; its ability to influence others to do what leaders what their subordinates to do.

 In its raw forms, there are six types of power: Physical (primal use of force), wealth, power caused by state action and laws, social norms, ideas, and sheer numbers. The last two fascinate me and have become especially accentuated in importance in the last three for four decades with its interwovenness with technology. The cases for example or culprits are technology companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, Microsoft to name the big five for starters who hoard an enormous amount of data with their powerful ideas and ability to connect large numbers of people.  With their massive reach using the power of ideas and adoption by population irrespective of trans-national boundaries, these companies are also able to wield power that flows with wealth, influence state and social norms.  It's important to note power follows three laws that govern it. These are that power is never static - it increases or decreases, power is a flow - it permeates an organization, system or society like electricity or water. This flow of influence is usually governed by the glue of politics and policy and finally, power (good or bad) compounds based on how the first two laws operate. 

To bring it all together: Leadership has the onus of recognizing that words are important to influence power but more importantly, it is one's integrity, compassion, courage in character we possess as individuals will shape words to encourage good values and benefits of others rather than our selfish self. 

Thoughts for a Saturday morning!