- Email: [email protected]
THE MEANING OF POWER
326
and unforseeable harm may be done to the stability of social relations and to the family in this and later
generations.
ROBERT E. HEMPHILL.
Conferences
of destructive power was fortunately less widespread and confined to a few individuals. It was probably related to man’s long period of dependency in infancy and childhood. Unlike other mammals, we were born helpless, but with a powerful aggressive drive. Mishandling at this early stage could have drastic results later when the erstwhile victim could take his revenge
on
society.
was something we all needed to exercise, in childhood (" I’m the king of the castle "). This was part of normal behaviour and social cohesion depended upon it. Danger lay in the development of uncontrolled authoritarian tendencies and in the primate propensity to accept too readily the subordinate role. In the defence of liberty there was no substitute for eternal vigilance, and courage was a corollary if essential options were to be preserved.
Power, however,
even
THE MEANING OF POWER AT a joint symposium of the Conflict Research Society and the Medical Association for the Prevention of War in London on Jan. 28, " power " was defined as the ability to exert one’s will over others, by persuasion, influence, or coercion. In its simplest context it could mean the ability of an
destroy or weaken some other individual group by physical force. But in human affairs power was mostly exercised, not by using force or by inflicting pain directly, but by the threat of doing so-a far more economical method. This involved communication-the threat or command had to be transmitted, received, and understood before: it could be effective. The threat was proverbially stronger than the action it threatened and was extremely efficient in civilised communities in securing obedience to laws. Often the mere symbol of power (e.g., policeman in uniform) was sufficient;:’ and a small force of police or military could exercise a strong, restraining influence in the absence of organised opposition. Law was a written instrument to make effective the will of the dominant section of a community. The power of an individual or group depended on the square-root of the number to be controlled; hence a large population could be dealt with relatively more easily than a small one. Stratification of the controlling system increased its efficiency enormously. Theoretically, ten determined men with four stratifications would possess fantastic power and could with ease control a population of ten million; with five stratifications they could control the whole world. Another means of exerting power was controlling behaviour by the promise of reward. Even if the reward were illusory the principle remained the same. In an authoritarian society obedience was obtained through each member of the group identifying his wishes with those of the leader. A reward from the leader rarely materialised, but mutual identification developed between members of the group. They reacted as one, thereby obtaining each other’s approval as a reward. Any deviation from the set pattern of behaviour involved both severe personal feelings of guilt and the disapproval of other members of the group. Amongst primates, the two main cohesive groups were (1) females and their young, and (2) relationships (rank orders) between males in a group. The acquisition of status in the rank order depended on a particular attention-binding quality possessed by the potentially dominant individual. Dominance was strongly aided by the tendency of most others to become subordinated. We all began life in a subordinate position-the mother-child relationship. The dominant individual, who attained his position through display behaviour in early maturity, exerted a degree of restricting influence analogous to that of the mother over the child, but exerted at a distance. Hitler’s rise to power was based on such primate, as opposed to specifically human, propensities. By recognising the unconscious primate propensity to become subordinate to an authoritarian individual, and differentiating it from socially conscious forms of sanction, we could develop the means whereby democracy could control any undue tendency to authoritarianism. The preservation of as many options for action as possible was vital, and the great variety of institutions and societies in this country was a valuable protection against dictatorship. The origin of society was related to the development of control over aggressive impulses, and competition in a non-damaging form was essential for healthy development. The phenomenon individual
or
group
Medicine and the Law
to
or
I i
: .
’
’
, ,
’
’
Definition of Suicide A
aged 28 was admitted to hospital on July 14, induce the birth of her second child. She had 1966, periodic epilepsy. The child was born on July 17. On July 22 at 6.5 A.M. she jumped from a second-floor window of the hospital, sustaining multiple injuries from which she died on Aug. 4. On Aug. 10 the West London coroner held an inquest. Evidence was given by a nurse and two doctors from the hospital, one of whom was a visiting psychiatrist. The deceased’s own doctor, under whose care she had been since 1961 and who had seen her in hospital several times, including the day before her death, was not called as a witness. The coroner recorded a verdict that she had died by suicide. Her husband sought the leave of the Divisional Court to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the inquisition of the coroner and directing that a new inquest be held. The Divisional Court refused the application, and the Court of Appeal gave leave to make the application. Lord Justice SELLERS said that the ground of the husband’s application was that there had been an insufficient inquiry by the coroner into his wife’s mental health immediately preceding and subsequent to her admission to hospital. The husband relied on the fact that his wife’s doctor had not given evidence and on that doctor’s proposed evidence at a new inquest. The doctor’s proposed evidence was that with the approach of the child’s birth the wife had suffered from extreme anxiety and that that anxiety had continued at least intermittently in the 5 days after the child’s birth; that the wife was not the kind of person who would intentionally have taken her life and, therefore, she must have been in a state of temporary psychosis and did not appreciate the probable consequences of what she was doing. However, the only ground on which the Court could interfere in the circumstances of this case would be if it thought that the verdict of suicide would probably be replaced by a different verdict if a new inquest were held. Suicide was never to be presumed, but had to be affirmatively proved. Suicide required an intention by the person concerned to kill himself. It could be described as every act of intentional self-destruction done by a person knowing the probable consequences of what he was doing. A fall during a fit of delirium or sleepwalking would be misadventure, but that was not this case. The deceased was certainly in ill health and under the stress of a disturbed mind. That might, no doubt, have accounted for what she did, but his Lordship did not think that any coroner on a reconsideration of the cause of death would probably find that she did not know what she was doing at the time of her fall or did not appreciate the probable conseWOMAN
to
quences. Accordingly, it was not probable that a new inquest would result in a different verdict and therefore the application would be dismissed. Lord Justice DIPLOCK and Lord Justice RusSELL agreed. In Davis, dcsd. Court of Appeal: Sellers, Diplock, and Russell .L..X7. Jan. 30, 1967.
NORMAN PRIMOST Barrister-at-Law.
and unforseeable harm may be done to the stability of social relations and to the family in this and later
generations.
ROBERT E. HEMPHILL.
Conferences
of destructive power was fortunately less widespread and confined to a few individuals. It was probably related to man’s long period of dependency in infancy and childhood. Unlike other mammals, we were born helpless, but with a powerful aggressive drive. Mishandling at this early stage could have drastic results later when the erstwhile victim could take his revenge
on
society.
was something we all needed to exercise, in childhood (" I’m the king of the castle "). This was part of normal behaviour and social cohesion depended upon it. Danger lay in the development of uncontrolled authoritarian tendencies and in the primate propensity to accept too readily the subordinate role. In the defence of liberty there was no substitute for eternal vigilance, and courage was a corollary if essential options were to be preserved.
Power, however,
even
THE MEANING OF POWER AT a joint symposium of the Conflict Research Society and the Medical Association for the Prevention of War in London on Jan. 28, " power " was defined as the ability to exert one’s will over others, by persuasion, influence, or coercion. In its simplest context it could mean the ability of an
destroy or weaken some other individual group by physical force. But in human affairs power was mostly exercised, not by using force or by inflicting pain directly, but by the threat of doing so-a far more economical method. This involved communication-the threat or command had to be transmitted, received, and understood before: it could be effective. The threat was proverbially stronger than the action it threatened and was extremely efficient in civilised communities in securing obedience to laws. Often the mere symbol of power (e.g., policeman in uniform) was sufficient;:’ and a small force of police or military could exercise a strong, restraining influence in the absence of organised opposition. Law was a written instrument to make effective the will of the dominant section of a community. The power of an individual or group depended on the square-root of the number to be controlled; hence a large population could be dealt with relatively more easily than a small one. Stratification of the controlling system increased its efficiency enormously. Theoretically, ten determined men with four stratifications would possess fantastic power and could with ease control a population of ten million; with five stratifications they could control the whole world. Another means of exerting power was controlling behaviour by the promise of reward. Even if the reward were illusory the principle remained the same. In an authoritarian society obedience was obtained through each member of the group identifying his wishes with those of the leader. A reward from the leader rarely materialised, but mutual identification developed between members of the group. They reacted as one, thereby obtaining each other’s approval as a reward. Any deviation from the set pattern of behaviour involved both severe personal feelings of guilt and the disapproval of other members of the group. Amongst primates, the two main cohesive groups were (1) females and their young, and (2) relationships (rank orders) between males in a group. The acquisition of status in the rank order depended on a particular attention-binding quality possessed by the potentially dominant individual. Dominance was strongly aided by the tendency of most others to become subordinated. We all began life in a subordinate position-the mother-child relationship. The dominant individual, who attained his position through display behaviour in early maturity, exerted a degree of restricting influence analogous to that of the mother over the child, but exerted at a distance. Hitler’s rise to power was based on such primate, as opposed to specifically human, propensities. By recognising the unconscious primate propensity to become subordinate to an authoritarian individual, and differentiating it from socially conscious forms of sanction, we could develop the means whereby democracy could control any undue tendency to authoritarianism. The preservation of as many options for action as possible was vital, and the great variety of institutions and societies in this country was a valuable protection against dictatorship. The origin of society was related to the development of control over aggressive impulses, and competition in a non-damaging form was essential for healthy development. The phenomenon individual
or
group
Medicine and the Law
to
or
I i
: .
’
’
, ,
’
’
Definition of Suicide A
aged 28 was admitted to hospital on July 14, induce the birth of her second child. She had 1966, periodic epilepsy. The child was born on July 17. On July 22 at 6.5 A.M. she jumped from a second-floor window of the hospital, sustaining multiple injuries from which she died on Aug. 4. On Aug. 10 the West London coroner held an inquest. Evidence was given by a nurse and two doctors from the hospital, one of whom was a visiting psychiatrist. The deceased’s own doctor, under whose care she had been since 1961 and who had seen her in hospital several times, including the day before her death, was not called as a witness. The coroner recorded a verdict that she had died by suicide. Her husband sought the leave of the Divisional Court to apply for an order of certiorari to quash the inquisition of the coroner and directing that a new inquest be held. The Divisional Court refused the application, and the Court of Appeal gave leave to make the application. Lord Justice SELLERS said that the ground of the husband’s application was that there had been an insufficient inquiry by the coroner into his wife’s mental health immediately preceding and subsequent to her admission to hospital. The husband relied on the fact that his wife’s doctor had not given evidence and on that doctor’s proposed evidence at a new inquest. The doctor’s proposed evidence was that with the approach of the child’s birth the wife had suffered from extreme anxiety and that that anxiety had continued at least intermittently in the 5 days after the child’s birth; that the wife was not the kind of person who would intentionally have taken her life and, therefore, she must have been in a state of temporary psychosis and did not appreciate the probable consequences of what she was doing. However, the only ground on which the Court could interfere in the circumstances of this case would be if it thought that the verdict of suicide would probably be replaced by a different verdict if a new inquest were held. Suicide was never to be presumed, but had to be affirmatively proved. Suicide required an intention by the person concerned to kill himself. It could be described as every act of intentional self-destruction done by a person knowing the probable consequences of what he was doing. A fall during a fit of delirium or sleepwalking would be misadventure, but that was not this case. The deceased was certainly in ill health and under the stress of a disturbed mind. That might, no doubt, have accounted for what she did, but his Lordship did not think that any coroner on a reconsideration of the cause of death would probably find that she did not know what she was doing at the time of her fall or did not appreciate the probable conseWOMAN
to
quences. Accordingly, it was not probable that a new inquest would result in a different verdict and therefore the application would be dismissed. Lord Justice DIPLOCK and Lord Justice RusSELL agreed. In Davis, dcsd. Court of Appeal: Sellers, Diplock, and Russell .L..X7. Jan. 30, 1967.
NORMAN PRIMOST Barrister-at-Law.