After I had a few days to think about the Kreisberg book and it's approach to power in relation to Machiavelli, I have to admit that I prefer the Kreisberg approach. This is really probably rooted in my counseling background, but I like to think that it's more related to my optimistic humanistic beliefs. I think that people struggle to be the best they can be and often make poor decisions because we lack the proper information to make the correct ones. This type of information is provided by simple interactions. If they're missing or dysfunctional the result is a stilted approach to problem solving, interaction with others, and so on. I believe that while Machiavelli may have been accurate in his portrayal of humans as basically motivated by self-interest, I'd like to think that we struggle as individuals for the opposite of that. Some may think that the approach of power-with or power between is just a different way of saying that 'consensus' is reached, but I really agree with the statements attributed to Macy relating to the change between A and B when there are meaningful interactions (page 80) and how the inevitable outcome is that both experience change (obviously some in more profound ways than others. If we believe that we are affected by our environment (including interactions within that environment), then our learning and perceptions must be affected or altered by interactions with others. Whether or not these interactions serve to strengthen what we believe to be true or whether we really moderate or modify our views, the point is we are affected and effected. While it may be easier in the short run to cover any potential opposition to a certain course of action by not permitting or even investigating input from others, we find, I think, that decisions made in a vacuum by one individual cannot, in the long run be to anyone's advantage.

    Kreisberg, while taking the long way around to his points, seems to indicate that the spirit of altruism can awaken others to move in the same positive direction. While not directly stating this, it seems to me to be implied in the statements regarding praxis, as well as the synergy created by group power-with relationships. The six teachers described in the study each had a particular individually driven reason for getting involved in the ESR group, and frankly, we don't find out a great deal about the particulars of the groups curriculums. It is apparent though that after these individuals became more deeply involved in this work (meeting one of their basic needs for companionship); they began to really work at fostering the same feelings of belonging they received within the group to their students. This really is the synergy that is being created. Taking it out of the confines of the particular group and expanding 'the membership' either directly or indirectly. In the case of the students, while it was initially indirectly (the reason for the formation of the ESR group while supposedly for students was probably initially more for the members) the involvement of the students to the extent they became involved was a positive offshoot.

    Each of the six teachers interviewed began explaining their disconnect with what they saw as their ability to affect positive change (exert their influence or power), and the ESR was really a tool to combine their needs. The interesting thing is that it is unclear that the initial design of the group was really focused on power-with, that seems to be possibly due to the combination of interests of the members. Shelley even describes situations where he exerted his influence to focus the direction of the group. This seems to indicate that there are no complete situations where power-over and power-with can continuously operate. There seem to be times when the pendulum must swing from power-with to power-over for the good of the group, to help focus the group toward some directed goal. Else it seems that this lack of focus will be the group's undoing.  An example of this would be where an individual takes the lead on an issue in an attempt to motivate others to become involved.  Hopefully this power-over is only temporary and serves to move the group, not effect a particular member.  Once used, it shouldn't be used because it's the thing to do.  The individual who exerted the power-over hopefully modeled the correct behavior and others will step up to the challenge.

    From a Machiavellian standpoint, I suppose that this would be the best that you could hope for; the appearance of not having control, yet still wielding the final control. But I think that as Dr. Ginsberg stated in class, autocratic control in the long run is detrimental to any organization. Shared control has its dangers as well. As a group or an organization becomes enculturated with itself, or begins to build a tighter organization it also begins to lose focus. Perhaps that is the real reason for the desire for turnover. Individuals become excited and involved until their basic need is fulfilled and at that point, move on and return when a revival is required. In the meantime, these individuals take the point-of-view gained by empowering experiences and try to help others to find that inner-self that they have difficulty discovering.

    The last issue that struck me with regard to Kreisburg is the issue of scarcity and how it drives the process. From a perspective of scarcity, one could imagine power-over relationships being useful in that there is minimal expenditures of energy or dialogue in the decision making process. The argument made by Kreisburg however is that in fact the synergies created by power-with relationships actually increase resources thereby offsetting (in the long run) concerns about issues related to expending some limited resource. This issue is important mainly because it seems to be one of the loudest arguments against the type of organization studied in the book.  People confuse the time it takes to create the energy as always being a waste of time and don't understand that a group approach, with equal involvement of all will create the best solution.  It could be due to the fact that we have not done a very good job in teaching people how to play together.  We take them out of the group approach and put them in positions where they compete with each other in a group environment.  This is a very different situation than working together as a team.  I think our group (the Collaborators) experienced this first hand the night we got together for the first time.  The first thought on most of our minds was 'Oh no, not another 'Group' experience'.  Unfortunately for some of us, it was difficult to break out of this frame of mind.  I think some of us have, but others have not.
    With this typical mindset there are calls for quick resolution to problems.  Time is of the essence.  We all become lovers of order and functionalist when the thought of the unknown is presented.  The common approach to problem identification, investigation and solution seems to focus on a top-down approach This seems to be agreeable to most people involved. Further, when given the opportunity to work as a focused action team, many individuals, not knowing how to do it fall back to this argument. This would seem to argue that this is a learned understanding and would also seem to be something that can be addressed in education.

    The end result of this is of course that no one approach is the ultimate solution. It is through understanding the pluses and minuses of each that one can determine which combination is best. It does seem evident that strict power-over or power-with relationships are doomed to fail on their own. It is through wise use of a combination of these two approaches to 'control' or power that we can best achieve the dual goals of self interest and altruism.
 
 

Kreisberg, Seth (1992). Transforming Power: domination, empowerment and education. Albany N.Y.: State University of New York Press.