Knowledge and Power

Knowledge is power – or is it?   The assertion that knowledge is power has been variously attributed to Sir Francis Bacon and Albert Einstein, as well as many other notable and obscure figures.   But perhaps Eudora Welty, Flannery O’Connor, and Richard Wright all know otherwise, as demonstrated in their respective stories:   â€Å"The Worn Path,† â€Å"A Good Man Is Hard To Find,† and â€Å"The Man Who Was Almost A Man.† These stories each show that knowledge is not an absolute bestower of power; that power does not logically and necessarily follow once one possesses knowledge.   Neither are the terms knowledge and power mutually exclusive, but, as can be seen in the following analysis of the short stories mentioned above, the power resulting from knowledge only comes if the person possessing the knowledge knows how to use it, and if the person then also feels powerful.   The power gained from knowledge is not an absolute power, but is, to a certain extent, subjective. Let us first look at Phoenix Jackson, the central character in Eudora Welty’s â€Å"A Worn Path† and perhaps the most powerful character in any of the three stories.     Phoenix has gained knowledge, and therefore power, from years of quietly studying human behavior, from paying close attention to her surroundings, and from her own self-awareness of how she affects others in the world.   Phoenix Jackson might appear at first glance to be lacking any power: she is an elderly, frail-looking woman whose eyesight is failing. Phoenix is also a very poor woman with few valuable possessions; poor people in her position are virtually always seen as lacking power.   However, upon closer observation the reader can see that Phoenix is a very powerful woman indeed.   Phoenix uses her knowledge of her physical surroundings to enable her to move about in a rather dangerous world, full of obstacles both animate and inanimate.   On her journey into town Phoenix encounters many potential dangers, but because she is knowledgeable about their existence, she avoids harm.   This capacity to keep herself safe is one trait which makes her a powerful woman. Phoenix even appears to use visualization to help her get across the creek; her ability to visualize the log and her safe passage is another form of knowledge which makes her powerful.   Phoenix has â€Å"body knowledge† – she has developed the capacity to remember where her body should go, even as her eyesight fails her.   The reason this body knowledge makes Phoenix powerful is that she is conscious of the knowledge and of how to use it; for example, when Phoenix reaches the city and â€Å"depended on her feet to know where to take her.† (Welty, p. 5).   Later in the story we see Phoenix walking up the steps of her destination, â€Å"until her feet knew to stop.† (Welty, p. 6) Phoenix Jackson has also gained power during her long life with her knowledge about human behavior.   Phoenix knows how to use both her own self as well as others’ reactions for her own purposes.   Phoenix is seen manipulating the white hunter so that she can put his fallen money into her own pocket.   Phoenix knows, after only a very brief encounter, that the hunter’s ego can be easily manipulated for her own purposes.   The hunter wishes to appear strong and in control, which Phoenix knows as she reminds the hunter that she needs to be â€Å"rescued† from the cur which ahs knocked her over.   Phoenix is able to pocket the money while the hunter is occupied with ridding her of the dog. One cannot manipulate others without possessing some sort of power, and powerful Phoenix is seen manipulating others at least twice more as the story proceeds.  Ã‚   Phoenix knows, almost instinctively it seems, who she can stop on the street to ask for assistance with her shoes.   But this small gesture is full of knowledge; Phoenix could have stopped any number of people on the busy street, but consciously chose to stop a certain woman.   Perhaps Phoenix knew that this particular woman would be more inclined to help her, as she appears to be a â€Å"nice lady† (Welty, p. 6) full of Christmas spirit, heavy as her arms are with presents. Phoenix again uses her knowledge about human behavior in order to manipulate the attendant at the clinic, who feels compelled to give a pitiful old woman some money.   It is not clear whether Phoenix is manipulating the nurse in order to get medication for herself or whether she does indeed have a grandson waiting at home, but the nurse is manipulated by Phoenix nevertheless, as she uses her age as an excuse for memory loss. The grandmother in Flannery O’ Connor’s short story, â€Å"A Good Man Is Hard To Find,† is not so self-aware as Phoenix and it is her failure to use her knowledge powerfully which gets her killed in the end.   The grandmother does indeed have knowledge but somehow is unable to use it to her advantage. It is an interesting side-note that the grandmother, the mother, and Red Sam’s wife are the only characters in O’Connor’s story who are not given names; even the cat has a name.   Perhaps O’Connor used this as a subtle indicator of who did and did not have power.   Indeed, neither the grandmother nor the mother appear to be very powerful characters in this story; and Red Sam’s wife, though not a central character, is portrayed as simply chattel for her husband, who orders her around and treats her dismissively. John Wesley’s and June Star’s grandmother knows from her years on earth that a good man is indeed hard to find; she knows that truly trustworthy people are rare treasures among the human race.   The grandmother’s discussion with Red Sam shows us that she is aware of just how devious people can be.   The grandmother knows that people are inherently untrustworthy. However, the grandmother’s knowledge does not then result in her having power, for she does not use the knowledge correctly.   The grandmother gave up the potential power of her knowledge when she revealed what she knew during the encounter with the Misfit.  Ã‚   When the grandmother recognized the Misfit, she could have used this knowledge to protect her family. Perhaps Eudora Welty’s Phoenix Jackson would have used the grandmother’s knowledge in some cunning way to manipulate the Misfit.   But O’Connor’s grandmother is not as powerful as Welty’s character, simply because she fails to cultivate her knowledge into a powerful tool.   The grandmother was knowledgeable but still powerless to save her own and her family’s lives. The third character who shows us that knowledge is not necessarily power is Dave, in Richard Wright’s â€Å"The Man Who Was Almost a Man.†Ã‚   Dave shows us that the power from knowledge is partially subjective and not an indisputable fact.   The reader sees very quickly that Dave feels â€Å"small,† not only in his physical stature but in his standing among his peers in the community.   This feeling of smallness is what makes Dave feel virtually powerless. Dave appears to have very limited knowledge of human behavior and of himself as a developing man.  Ã‚   Fear is a large factor in Dave’s twisted perception of what will give him power.   Dave is scared of other boys who are all bigger than him; he has also been raised to be scared of the adults in his life.   This fear has given Dave the â€Å"knowledge† that, if one is feared, one has power.   Of course this knowledge is flawed. But Dave’s knowledge is not a mature, conscious knowledge; it is a knowledge born of his own very limited backwoods experience in the world.   Dave sees that, if he can scare others as others have scared him, he will become a powerful man.   Once Dave has knowledge of how a gun makes him feel, he thinks he has discovered an important part of becoming a man.   Perhaps the most important discovery made by Dave is that his actions have consequences; once Dave kills the mule, he sees that something he has done has made a difference, albeit a negative difference, but a difference in the world all the same. Although Dave’s knowledge has the potential to give him power, it is not well developed and is based in fear.   Therefore his knowledge may make him an even less powerful person.   Dave does not know how to use his new-found knowledge.   Instead of making him a powerful person, his knowledge may be turning him into a dangerous person as the flawed knowledge becomes more entrenched into his personality. Knowledge is power†¦.the central characters in the stories analyzed above each show us, in their own way, that this statement is very over-simplified and not necessarily true.   Power can indeed come from having knowledge.   But that knowledge must be carefully cultivated and used appropriately in order to then provide power.   And there are occasions when we can have knowledge but lack the awareness to use that knowledge to our advantage, or power. Last, if we have knowledge but lack the conviction that we have power to use our knowledge in useful ways, we are still left as powerless as if we did not have the knowledge at all.   So power resulting from knowledge must also include self-awareness, awareness of others, and the ability to adapt our knowledge to particular situations.   Only then can we say that knowledge is power. Knowledge and Power â€Å"Scientia Potentia Est†, a famous aphorism that is otherwise translated as â€Å"For also Knowledge itself is Power†, was conceptualized during the late 16th century by the world-renowned Philosopher and Statesman of that time, Sir Francis Bacon. Indeed, Sir Bacon developed an understanding of the idea that by accumulating knowledge, one is able to exert, impose or influence power (as can be inferred) towards another.For instance, a person who has accumulated knowledge can withhold himself or herself from sharing this knowledge to others. Thus, a sort of personal advantage develops between those who have knowledge and those who want knowledge. The former, if desired, can ultimately influence the actions of the latter if the existing desire for knowledge is used against them. Otherwise, the same result could also be inferred from the opposite: once knowledge is shared by the person who has accumulated them, power is reflected in the sense that the person who has sha red it had the privilege of sharing it.Such an example only perpetuates the idea of ambiguity of the concept of power. Indeed, power, in all its forms and contexts, is a concept that has been contested my many scholars and philosophers alike for decades, even centuries. Some relate power in the form of having the ability of exercising coercion. Others relate the concept with the possession of material wealth. Still further, others profess that power is somehow related to social class. Unfortunately, these credible attempts at establishing links to the concept of power only express supplementary ambiguity to the term.For example, even though power can be somehow related to the ability of using force (coercion), the term can also be associated with the ability of persuasion – a rather mild version of quasi-coercion that does not involve the usage of force.   The same thing goes with the idea of power as equaled to the possession of material wealth and as represented by social class. Contrary to the latter statement, intangible or incorporeal wealth can also be associated with power as a substitute for material wealth. Also, behind social class lie the idea of power as related to personal or group charisma and expertise. In other words, a person belonging to the highest social class in society cannot be more powerful over those that are below his social class if those individuals under his class are more charismatic and more adequate and excellent in terms of abilities and skills.Having identified the cumbersome and volatile nature of power, is it still plausible to conclude that knowledge is indeed power? Is there a relevant connection between the two concepts? If none, can a relevant connection be established; no matter how arguable or refutable? Basically, does the possession of knowledge represent the possession of power?To answer this question, let us first understand how scholars and philosophers of the past have identified and/or defined power dur ing their time.The great 19th century philosopher, Sir Friedrich Nietzsche, often described the concept of power as something that expresses one’s domination over other human beings. If so, then knowledge could indeed be a source of power since the ignorance of knowledge denotes inferiority in logical thinking and skillful know-how; thus, disavowing the ability or opportunity of the individual to dominate others who do possess knowledge. However, another dilemma may arise from the latter statement. If knowledge is truly a source of power, how come individuals who do possess knowledge are not powerful?The answer, of course, is that knowledge in itself is not power. In order for knowledge to become a source of power, the individual must be able to aptly apply or exercise his or her knowledge in the form of actions for the purposes of achieving or producing results. As some scholars have put it, â€Å"knowledge is power only if one knows how to use it†.   Truly, if one individual possesses a myriad amount of knowledge but does not know how to translate it into action, then power is not represented. This concept, however, does not stray away from the concept of knowledge as a source of power nor does it emanate from the idea of action as a source of power rather than the mere possession of knowledge.It must be understood that actions are determined by the individual’s mind. If a certain amount of knowledge is absent within the individual’s cognitive processes then the action executed may not produce tremendous results that are reflective of the representation of power. However, if knowledge is indeed present, chances are that actions executed may produce excellent results that would be quite superior to actions that are conducted without knowledge. Simply said, actions augmented by knowledge reflect power on the part of the individual (superiority).In order to make the preceding points more plausible, let us try establishing the conce pt in a certain field or study. In this instance, let us put the concept of power as knowledge into the workplace – in this case a corporation.Most corporations possess similar theories of organization ranging from the classical theory of organization to the more systematic (systems) theory of organization. And with these models comes a set of different levels, styles or concepts of hierarchy and/or bureaucracy (formal and informal, orthodox or unorthodox). In other words, corporations always try to establish a â€Å"division of power† among its leaders and workers. Now, let us try to apply the concept of knowledge as power in a leader-worker relationship. Leaders of corporations, in all intents and purposes, are the decision-makers of the entire system.Workers, on the other hand, have more of a hands-on approach compared to their respective leaders. As far as the relationship goes, it is the leader who will decide how the workers will act. Now, the question is, is thi s a simple form of exercising power? Is the authority of the leader over the workers a concrete example of power in the form of knowledge? The answer, of course, is no; it is not a simple form of power illuminated by knowledge – at least not completely. One possible reason why this is so is because the relationship between the two actors reflect two issues as can be inferred from the general concept of power.First, the source of power as reflected from the leader can mostly likely be originating from his or her given authority. In other words, it is the granted authority of the corporation that is providing the leader his or her own personal power and not his or her own possession of knowledge. Second, the worker cannot be subject to inferiority since the worker is aware that his or her job is to simply follow orders. For power to be present, one must be able to persuade or force an individual to do what he or she wishes. Otherwise, if the worker decides not to follow the ord ers of the leader, then it can be inferred that the worker is expressing power over the leader (charisma or personal ability). But that is another issue.If so, how is knowledge as a source of power reflected in a leader-worker relationship? One possible explanation could be found from the personal histories of both actors.Respective or high positions in most corporations require excellent abilities or practical know-how. As such, no normal individual can just apply or be promoted to such a position if the individual does not possess the necessary skills or abilities that the position requires. Simply said, leaders are on their respective positions simply because they possess the required skills and as a result, are thoroughly capable of fulfilling its functions.Workers, on the other hand, may not possess these prerequisites or capabilities. However, this does not imply that workers are not knowledgeable. This merely implies that workers are yet on the verge of acquiring or developin g the necessary knowledge for fulfilling the functions that are required by the position. And where can a worker acquire this necessary knowledge? The answer, definitely, is quite reflective of the answer to the whole problem of where can the idea of knowledge as power be inferred from a leader-worker relationship – from the leader.Indeed, if a worker wishes to achieve the same position as that of his or her own leader, then that worker must first develop knowledge based from his or her work and eventually acquire knowledge from his or her own leader. If recognized (or desired), the leader who possesses the knowledge that is required by the worker can now express or exercise power over the worker in the sense that the leader now has the choice of whether or not to impart his or her own knowledge to the worker.Going back to the previous points, if an individual withholds his or her own knowledge from sharing it to others, then power is gained in the form of an advantage; thus, producing a sense of superiority. As one head of a corporation has put it, â€Å"Knowledge is power and you do not share power.† The worker, however, can try to acquire knowledge of the same context from others and that action might change the idea of power in a leader-worker relationship. However, it is very unlikely that this is to happen for if the worker decides to gather power outside of his or her own corporation that knowledge may well be different from what the corporation may require or need.As mentioned earlier, power is a concept that has been contested my many scholars and philosophers alike for centuries. To suddenly come up with a personal explanation of power in the form of the possession of knowledge is something not new in the world of power.  As demonstrated, power is a really ambiguous term, let alone be defined in terms of knowledge. However, one cannot deny the fact that knowledge is indeed a source of power; for if knowledge is absent, one will not be able to exercise the myriad forms of power over others.In conclusion, if knowledge (in any form) is present within an individual and that that individual’s counterpart possesses a certain amount of ignorance of over the same type of knowledge, then the former is most likely to be more powerful over the latter. Simply put, the possession of knowledge is superiority over those who do not possess knowledge.Works Cited:Caruso, Denise. â€Å"Knowledge is Power only if you know how to use it.† March 2007 The New York Times 21 November 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/business/yourmoney/11frame.html?_r=1&oref=sloginWimmer, Sandra. â€Å"For Illinois Agency, Knowledge is Power – and Promise.† August 2005 Government Procurement 21 November 2007,http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-procurement/1162860-1.htmlLloyd, Bruce. â€Å"The Paradox of Power.† May 1996 The Futurist 21 November 2007,http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/employee -development-leadership/553463-1.htmlGrant, Beau. â€Å"Knowledge is POWER.† October 2005 Government Procurement 21 November 2007, http://www.allbusiness.com/management/928236-1.html