The distinction between the paradigm of technology and the paradigm of love and the magical brings us to a discussion of the difference between scientific power and the humanistic version. Perhaps in no other respect is the difference between the paradigms so flagrant.
Technology does not require that we enter into a process
and understand it: only that we withdraw and
manipulate. Conversely love is
a commitment to a process in hope that we will gain a sense of oneness with
love
and life. It is this "security
of harmonious partnership with nature that . . . is a glimmer of the good old
magic" (Roszak, 1975, p. 168). As a poet/ songwriter Leonard Cohen expressed it, ''magic
is
no
instrument,
magic is the end." It
is "aliveness" which the humanistic vision wishes to embrace.
God is
Alive, Magic is Afoot.
God is
Afoot, Magic is Alive.
Alive is
Afoot. Magic never died . . .
Though His
death was published
Round and
round the world,
The heart
did not believe . . .Magic is Afoot.
God moves.
Alive is
Afoot. Alive is in command.
Many weak
men hungered,
Many strong
men thrived;
Though they
boast of solitude,
God was at
their side . . .
Magic is
Afoot.
It cannot
come to harm.
It rests in
an empty palm.
It spawns
in an empty mind.
But Magic
is no instrument.
Magic is
the end.
Many men
drove magic, but magic stayed behind.
Many strong
men lied;
They only
passed through magic
and out the
other side.
Many weak
men lied;
They came
to God in secret
and though
they left Him nourished,
They would
not say who healed.
Though
mountains danced before them,
They said
that God was dead.
though His
shrouds were hoisted,
The naked
God did live . . .
This I mean to laugh with in my mind.
This I mean
my mind to serve
'til
service is but Magic moving
through the
world,
And mind
itself is Magic
coarsing
through the flesh,
And flesh
itself is Magic dancing on a clock,
And time itself, the Magic length of God.
-- Leonard Cohen
The
magical version of love seeks to embrace the Magic. Love is not technology, love is magic. Humanism seeks to move past role-like
theories of humans to embrace instead the creature who is moving on the hands
of time itself.
This
is a different system of meaning than the scientific heroism which would rule
and control. The humanist seeks to
become part of knowledge. Roszak
(1975, p. 165) wrote that while the word "magic" might give "the
phrase a more unorthodox turn than Martin Buber would have approved, his I-Thou
relationship is the essential quality of the magical vision."
Since magic frequently takes the form of a petition for favor or a rite towards some natural force, it is easy to mistake its aim as power . . . . what authentic magic seeks, however, is not power, but security -- the security of being at one with nature, of moving receptively with its grain and sharing its purposes. What is it that true magicians are after? A state of being, not a method of manipulation . . . But besides the security that comes of trust and cooperation, there is also the security that comes -- or seems to come -- of domination, provided our ability to dominate can be made absolute. This is the image of security that seduces us into wanting another sort of power -- forcing-power. Here again the demonic has a shrewd trick to play us. It convinces us that security can be gained sooner through force than trust. Especially when we become afraid in crisis, grow rigid and lose our adaptability, the appeal of forcing-power can be irresistible. Once our connection with nature ceases to be a respectful relationship between person and person and becomes the relationship of human master to alien thing, then we have a very different kind of magic: black magic, the magic of evil sorcerers who have no wish to know the nature of things; they only use it for selfish advantage (Roszak, 1975, pp. 166-167). [Italics Original]
The
benefits of love occur "as if by magic.'' They are outcomes of a shared purpose. At times, these gifts may even be asked
for, but such invitations are categorically
different from a technique which commands a
given effect. The magician, as the
lover, asks, invites, courts. The
technological scientist commands, manipulates, and seeks to control.
The
difference between a humanistic version and a scientific version of power might be truly illustrative here. The scientist seeks to control, force, and eliminate
risk. The humanist emphasizes respect
and invitation. The humanist
treats love as a gift that cannot be commanded, but which "magically" is
given. Love and compassion
cannot be obligated or expected -- they border on the miraculous. The scientist attempts to grasp the process. The humanist knows not from where love
comes or where it goes, but that it is a spring from which we have drawn. Unlike the scientist who may initially
begin with such data collection before converting it into technique, the
humanist desires to know the process
without turning it into shorthand. Scientists followed Bacon's attempt to
temper knowledge into power. The
humanist sees power as useless unless it promotes us to knowledge.
Here, we encounter an odd paradox.
A humanist might well define power as the ability to let go: to enter into the situation and allow one's full self to
come into play. Power would then
be more closely related to strength:
the security to let the lines of self drop without worrying about losing
one's self. Power could then be
construed as the ability to enter fully into the moment -- a capacity to bear
risks. Humanistic power is akin to
the ability to be vulnerable and transparent: to let yourself go. In such a relaxed atmosphere, one draws
more fully on creative powers. One is capable of influencing a situation with
much more "power" than afforded by manipulation. It is this entering into the present
while suspending determination of outcomes which is the prerequisite of
influence.
Influence
is always potentially mutual and thus involves a risk. By entering fully into the present, we
allow the future to escape from our predetermined mold. It is only by letting go of a
predetermined future that we can hope to attain influence. This is a difficult task for the mind.
And yet, if we are to desire humanism, then we must allow for a plurality of
actors. We cannot reduce human
beings to prescribed futures. And
this pluralism cannot be circumscribed and controlled.
Humanism
refuses to conceive of human beings as smaller role-like versions which can
then be manipulated. This, as
Becker (1968, p. 364) notes, "takes a strong person because it means
opting for man as an end, and this means introducing indeterminacy into the
world."
It
is only by such faith in the human spirit and refusal to violate the
fundamental in human components
that we can hope to speak of humanism.
The humanist trusts in the power of love to transform situations and
understandings. This power of love
cannot be "scripted" in advance -- at least not in a scientific
version of controlled outcomes. It
requires moving past a symbolic, abstracted version of love and allowing love
to occur on its own. The humanist
foregoes manipulation trusting in a larger direction and power. The humanistic power does not seek to
force, but seeks to court and invite.
It is compelling in the sense of an aspiration of the heart, yet one may
refuse its invitation.
The
humanistic power is close to the child-like sense of playing where one's power
is discovered and created in action.
As with play, discovery is often greater than what would have been
expected. While scientific power
must rely upon the rationally preconceived, play allows the creative an
opportunity to blossom. In this
spirit of openness, one finds solutions and influence which could not have been
predicted. Influence invokes a
sense of play which then shapes the world. This deeper awareness is powerful because it embraces a way
of being which seems preferable.
It is this open invitation that people aspire to follow.
One
courts by bringing joy, aliveness, and understanding into the moment. With a
sense of awe and quiet wonder, one invites the other into the gentleness of
laughter and the security of joy.
Through respect, one courts social arrangements which will be beneficial
to all. This concern for the human
is paramount to motives and goals.
The humanistic power is a faith which hopes the magic will appear: that
a creative power will be released bringing the situation into focus and
influencing it in the desired direction.
Sometimes this happens.
Sometimes it does not.
Yet even when the humanistic power does not work, the humanist cannot
retreat to another strategy. The
humanist can only set the stage, court the ''muse", and extend an
invitation. He or she may
emphasize and confront, but the humanist will not take by force.
The
scientific power will seek to force an outcome at any cost with no regard for
the pollution created by such coercion.
However, if the humanist tries to take the Other by force, the very
essence of the humanistic vision is lost.
To court by force is closer to rape than to love. The secrets we wished to unfold remain
unfulfilled. If we must force
love, then it is not love. If we
must trick or swindle or in other ways try to coerce love to render its fruits,
then we will never be quite satisfied with their sweetness.
Perhaps
it is because we have conceived of love as a gift and thus outside of our
control that we find it so valuable.
Love that can be bought or forced is only a pretense. Real love is
similar to a free gift. Those seeking
scientific and technological ways of controlling and predicting love will never
be satisfied with their results for love will slip through their grasp. Love is not a force which we can chain
to our intentions. We must all
remember that at times there has been nothing that we could do to "win" a
love. And at
other times, we have been loved far beyond anything we could have ever
predicted.
The
power of love is vastly different from the power of science and
technology. This is the key to our
understanding of love and the problems that have been encountered trying to fit
it to a scientific framework.
Love
is related to growth. But we
cannot force love or successfully barter, steal, or manipulate it. Buscaglia in his popular account Love
shows a clear understanding. He
illustrates the relation of love to a different view of power. It cannot be framed as science and
technology yet still remain love:
Love is . . . not a thing in the sense that it cannot be bought or sold or weighed or measured. Love can only be given, expressed freely. It can't be captured or held, for
its neither there to tie nor to hold (Buscaglia, 1972, p. 107).
. . . there are people available for purchase, the body and mind in the name of love. But it's only a self-deceiver who believes that love can truly be bought. He may buy another's body, his time, his earthly possessions, but he will never buy his love. One may choose to pretend love for a price. This is a dramatic art which has been perfected by many to the extent to which it is impossible for anyone to discern the deceit. But this game of playing love is not easy. The cost is great and never worth the price.
Love cannot be captured or tied to a wall. Love only slips through the chains. If love wills to take another course, it goes; and all the prisons, guards, chains or obstructions in the world aren't strong enough to detain it for a second. If one human being ceases to will to grow in love with another, the other may play several parts to hold him. He may become a villain and threaten him; he may become generous and offer him gifts; he may become crafty and trick him into remaining, or he may change his own 'self' to meet the other's needs. But whatever he does, the other's love is gone and he will receive, for all his energies, only an empty body, devoid of love -- all but dead. So the price for his efforts will be to live out his life holding on desperately and giving his love to a lifeless, loveless human frame. This, though it may seem revolting, is common practice, often performed for security, fame or fortune. The dynamics become even more grotesque when one considers that this dead-ended relationship forfeits all possibilities of the lover's continued growth. Love is always open arms. With arms open you allow love to come and go as it wills, freely, for it'll do so anyway. If you close your arms about love, you'll find you are only left holding yourself (Buscaglia, 1972, pp. 93-94).
Love
invites and helps to us make grow in love, but it cannot be controlled. Jourard (1971, p. 57) made this point
quite forcefully as he concludes a discussion of love with the following
words: "There is no end to
this chapter, or to loving. Unless, afraid of possible hurt, we decide, not to
love,
but to control and use.''
Love
seeks to encourage love; to facilitate it. Yet, we cannot force a person to grow in love with us. At times a person seeks love elsewhere. There are times when one is too
defensive to risk love. The limits
of the power of love are that we cannot force a person to attend to our
love; we can only offer the
opportunity, get their attention, and court and invite.
Love
must always be an aspiration that the other person either has or is willing to
entertain. We cannot move past a
person's defenses into a communion of love unless that person allows us. Maslow's (1962) discussion of growth
shows this aspect of the humanistic power quite clearly:
Defensiveness can be as wise as daring; it depends on the particular person, his particular status and the particular situation in which he has to choose. The choice of safety is wise when it avoids pain that may be more than the person can bear at the moment. If we wish to help him grow, then all we can do is help if he asks for help out of suffering, or else simultaneously allow him to feel safe and beckon him onward to try the new experience like the mother whose arms invite the baby to try to walk. We can't force him to grow, we can only coax him to, make it possible for him, in the trust that simply experiencing the new experience will make him prefer it; no one can prefer it for him. If it is to become part of him, he must like it. If he doesn't, we must gracefully concede that it is not for him at this moment (p. 54). [Italics Original]
The
humanistic power is not force and compulsion. It is the power of being
actualizing itself. This is what
Nietzsche spoke of as 'the will to power." Tillich (1954) wrote:
. . . basically the will to power in Nietzsche is . . , a designation of the dynamic self-affirmation of life. It is, like all concepts describing ultimate reality, both literal and metaphorical. The same is true of the meaning of power in the concept the 'will to power.' It is not the sociological function of power which is meant . . . enforcing one's will against social resistance, is not the content of the will to power. The latter is the drive of everything living to realize itself
with increasing intensity and extensity. The will to power is not the will of men to attain power over men, but it is the self-affirmation of life in its self-transcending dynamics, overcoming internal and external resistance. This interpretation of Nietzsche's 'will to power' easily leads to a systematic ontology of power (p. 36).
This
is why Nietzsche is sometimes referred to as the "Father of Humanistic
Psychology." He gives us a
different ontology of power -- the humanistic power. Power in this sense is the will to life; it is the power of love.
Humanistic
conceptions of power differ radically from the scientific power of cause and
effect. We cannot successfully
treat the human with the same mechanical tools we have used in the physical
sciences:
That which is forced must preserve its identity. Otherwise, it is not forced but destroyed . . . . One cannot transform a living being into a complete mechanism, without removing its centre and this means without destroying it as a living unity (Tillich, 1954, p. 46).
Nietzsche
spoke of freedom for things as opposed to freedom
from things. He noted that when most people use the word freedom, they
are speaking as if they meant freedom from, but what they really desire is freedom for: the ability, the opportunity to accomplish some purpose.
Power
can also be conceived of in this way.
Power for is the humanistic
power and relates to actualization. Power from or power over is the
scientific power which needs control and domination. Fromm (1947) used this same distinction to develop his
conceptions. He termed them power of and power over:
Power of = capacity, and power over = domination. This contradiction, however is of a particular kind. Power = domination results from a paralysis of power = capacity. 'Power over' is the perversion of 'power to.' . . . Domination is coupled with death, potency with life (p- 994)
Fromm
(1947, p. 98) noted that this conception was also not foreign to the thinking
of Spinoza (Ethics IV, Def. 8) who
wrote that "by virtue and power, I understand the same thing." The humanistic power is the power of
actualized being. It is the power
of love. Charisma is the personal
power it is an attraction to
realized living. "Love is an action, the
practice of a human power, which can be practiced only in freedom and never as
the result of a compulsion" (Fromm, 1956, p. 18).
Charisma
awakes in us a participation in a larger feeling which is alive. The person who displays charisma may
not always be the saint that we had hoped, but the personal power that we sense
awakens an aliveness in us. We are
attracted towards the humanistic power.
We do not need to be forced, but willingly join the dance.
The
idea of the humanistic power well illustrates the energy of love. Fromm (1947, p. 106) wrote that: "One's own power to love produces
love -- just as being interested makes one interesting".
If I am interested, I must transcend my ego, be open to the world, and jump into it. Interest is based on activeness . . . . The interested person becomes interesting to others because interest has an infectious quality (Fromm, 1968, p. 85).
This is similar to giving: In the act of giving something is born, and both persons involved are grateful for the life that is born for both of them. Specifically with regard to love this means: love is a power which produces love . . . (Fromm, 1956, p. 21).
. . . not only in love does giving mean receiving. The teacher is taught by his students, the actor is stimulated by his audience, the psychoanalyst is cured by his patient -- provided they do not treat each other as objects, but are related to each other genuinely and productively (Fromm, 1956, p. 21)
Humanistic
power is akin to magic; love produces love -- something is born. Somehow one is larger. By giving and letting go, some larger
power is awakened. The scientific
power must manage all variables; humanistic power taps another type of
force. A psychologist might refer
to this as the power of the developed personality. Religious sources might say it is a gift of God. Sorokin (1950, p. 1) referred to it as "the mysterious energy of love" and notes that "man's
freedom
lies in his ability to cultivate his greatest source of creative and
regenerative power."
This
requires that e develop a different stance towards power than we are normally
accustomed to taking. In
principle, the scientific power is infinite. n the other hand, the humanistic
power admits to limits. Magic only
goes so far. Outside of the Self
is always Other. No matter how
much power one may have, one never has all the power. There is always someone else. There is the limit of power: we always know it is impossible to have
it all. No matter how magical we
become, we do not control it. On
the distant shore, there is always another who we must recognize as also having
power.
The
humanistic power is based on hope and the strength of the person who can
love. It is perhaps this attitude
that best characterizes the humanistic power. Fromm (1968) wrote of this movement toward actualization of
love in The Revolution of Hope. It
is the attitude of courting, inviting, and hoping that is the humanistic
power. It is the movement toward
life and fuller realization; the
attractiveness which springs from the human breast; the patience which permits growth; and the knowledge that only through the humanistic power can
we approach that which the heart desires.
Hope is paradoxical. It is neither passive waiting nor is it unrealistic forcing of circumstances that cannot occur. It is like the crouched tiger, which will jump only when the moment for jumping has come. . . . To hope means to be ready at every moment for that which is not yet born, and yet not become desperate if there is no birth in our lifetime. There is no sense in hoping for that which already exists or for that which cannot be. Those whose hope is weak settle down for comfort or for violence; those who hope is strong see and cherish all signs of new life and are ready every moment to help the birth of that which is ready to be born . . . . Faith, like hope, is not prediction of the future; it is the vision of the present in a state of pregnancy (Fromm, 1968, p. 1).
Love
is hope in action. It is the humanistic power. Humanistic power is a different type of "ego-management." Ego
seeks to maintain control, yet control which does not allow an opening is
over-management. We must arrange
our power in such a way as not to cancel out the life we wish to
experience. We must find ways of
participating in other selves while leaving the boundaries porous enough that
we do not destroy what we touch.
Everyone
feels that in many ways they are not deserving of love. We feel that we must manipulate it,
earn, or exchange for it. But love
is always beyond our control. It
is never scientific. When love is
given to us, it is never because we have discovered the right
prescription. Love is outside the
cause and effect perspective. It
is always a gift. Perhaps the
world goes together in a way that we are only beginning to suspect. This is the humanistic power.
No
one really wants to live in a world strictly of their own making. If one does, then often when we get
exactly what we thought we wanted, we do not want it anymore. For as humans, we desire life somewhat
larger than the rational dictates of our fantasy. We desire something new to press us past our contrived
projections. We desire Other to
add to our presence, to come into our lives, and shape the living somewhat
differently than we had planned.
The scientific power of instituting a plan and literally carrying through
loses creativity and, above all, it loses and, above all, it loses our full
participation. We do not want the
world as thought would dictate it on the blackboard. We want the full hand of life.
This
difference between the humanistic and the scientific power is what Roszak
(1975, p. 166) referred to as "being-power" and
"forcing-power."
Humanistic psychology has sought to advocate and document the
transforming nature of "being power." Perls (1969, p. 1) wrote that ''if by chance we find each
other, it's beautiful; but if not, it can't be helped." Maslow (1962) wrote of a "psychology of being" that
transforms a person's life and the world
around them. Rogers (1961, 1977)
wrote of a non-possessive type power.
Jourard (1968, 1971) emphasized transparency and openness as
preconditions to transforming experience and relationships. Fromm (1976) summarized his thesis of
scientific materialism and the world of spirit with the question: "to be or to have?"
Love
cannot be understood through the scientific-technological frame of reference
which is the mainspring of Western culture. This may well require us to bridge sacred ground and
re-vitalize some of the old religious concepts which Science sought to supplant. One of these concepts is the Christian
notion
of "grace.'' Grace is a gift
of God. It is a free gift: ''the unmerited love and favor of
God" (Webster, 1966, p. 627).
It
is a miracle not subject to our rational dynamics. Even the mystics write with some consistency about the "dark night of the soul" (Roszak,
1980). It always occurs "as if by magic." The light transforms the darkness only
when one has given up the attempt to fight back the night.
And while there may be ways to seek love, we must realize that we are
over our head and not in control.
Grace, like love, cannot be obligated. It always appears as a miracle after one has relinquished
control.
We
might wonder here at the fact that "charisma" means literally (from
the Greek) "a gift of grace."
It is a personal power springing "as if" by magic. We might also note that the most
significant experiences in our lives appeared almost "miraculously." They
were not things of science. They
are better understood from a quite different paradigm.
Sociology
might also borrow another concept from the religion of the East. This is the idea of "karma." Karma
means
literally "to do." It
represents the "totality of a person's actions" (Webster, 1966, p.
798). It expresses the idea that a
person's way of life is associated with certain consequences. Karmas cannot be
manipulated. Such a conception of
it would miss the point. Karma is
not a technique; it is the
associated consequences of a way of living. Benefits do not accrue as causes and effects but as
integrated structural components characteristic of a given way of life. Similarly, the benefits from love and
the magical are part a whole and do not lend themselves to technology. Joy is associated with trust. Faith is related to love. Laughter may be correlated with hope. Being is associated with the
magical. But these are not
dependent and independent variables.
They are part of a different paradigm. They are components of a way of life that interact and
nourish each other. We must not
expect to plug them into a technological framework.
We
must seek a different paradigm in order to understand and explore love. But although we conceive of love as
akin to a gift of grace, this does not mean that e must surrender all desire,
follow love, and resign ourselves to despair until it occurs. Just because love cannot be analyzed
scientifically, does not mean that we cannot approach it as an art (Fromm,
1956). Even though we cannot
control and predict results in a scientific fashion, does not mean that our
efforts at invitation and courtship might not be more successful than we ever
dreamed. We must learn to court
the "use of Love" on love's own terms. We can learn to free ourselves from structures and
arrangements which prevent love's magic.
And we can discover and explore ways to encourage and facilitate love's
coming more fully into play in our lives.
To
understand love, we must move beyond the scientific world view of Western
culture and beyond the expediency of technology. This means moving directly into a dialog with love and the
magical. Many have said that we
cannot talk about love, but what they mean is that we cannot capture it or
chain it to a scientific framework.
However, we must not surrender love and the magical to a strictly
irrational framework that has no implications for the rational ordering of the
world. Love is irrational only in
the sense that it cannot be controlled.
It is not a product of cause and effect dynamics, yet we can still talk
about it in a coherent manner. We
can approach an understanding of love and allow that understanding to direct
the course of our inquiry and the nature of our social change strategies.
Having
spent all of this time orienting toward a discussion of love, it is now time to
open the door and approach the subject directly. We must place love front and center stage.