on power and non-players

When constitutional scholars, political scientists, and normal citizens alike all study what motivates people to act, whether for good or bad, they point to one thing: power.

An anomaly of an undefinable term with countless definable instances of its use, its taken humans no shorter than decades to try and point out what makes something powerful. Some think it's nothing more than a dynamic between groups of people. Plato argued that people only seek power out of selfish desires, leaving it a subjective, devious concept. And intriguingly, philosopher Arthur Berndston argued that power is “free” until it’s catalyzed by sudden instances of change.

When I first signed on to my job as a writer, I was given a few books to read as part of my onboarding process. One of them was Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power – a book that’s taken on a cult following as a manual for those looking to make more money, get promotions, and obtain power in a world that imagines a “pinnacle of fairness”.

In the introduction to his now-controversial book, Greene divides the world into two main categories: players and non-players.

The non-players are those who live morally in a world in which power should have no impact on their actions and the effects they have. These people are typically honest, straightforward, and unapologetic about their morals, supposedly “naive” about the world and the power dynamics that define them.

Contrarily, the players are those who “place [their] hand inside an iron glove” and engage in deception and seduction in order to elicit power over those around them. For what is the point of playing fair in an unfair world?

It is safe to say that the majority of idealists fall into the non-player camp. Those that would rather see politicians be outward with their values, working for justice than for votes or cash.

According to Greene, however, there’s no purpose for these non-players, other than denying the purpose of power in the world – “there’s no use in opting out of the game.”

It’s a fundamental flaw not only in morals, but in worldview that has corrupted even the most intricate levels of society. Power is not something to be exploited, to be desirable, to be a “game” worth playing in the slightest.

The United States as a nation is perhaps the most interesting case study in power and its applications for both political and social purposes. The richest nation in the world with (at times) the most powerful democracy that literally came to define what a “first world nation” even means.

Yet, it’s no longer a secret that politicians are not living by the morals they preach, or that they’re not “playing” the corrupt game of power.

So why not try to opt out?

An alternative approach to power doesn’t necessarily mean being passive or withdrawing from society altogether, but rather redefining what it means to have power over someone else. Power shouldn’t be a zero-sum game – one person’s gain isn’t another’s loss – but rather a collaborative force that elevates all through the use of power.

Consider the ideas of grassroots movements and community organizing. It’s perfectly indicative of the paradox of influence without authority – a concept that flies in the face of traditional power structures. Not a single "player" at the helm, yet still boundless influence and command over policy. It’s certainly not perfect, yet it’s a starting point for the hungry – this is power reimagined, decentralized and democratized.

It's to reject the iron glove and instead extend an open hand. It's to recognize that true power lies not in the ability to control, but in the courage to collaborate, to innovate, and to progress.

This isn't mere idealism – it's a pragmatic response to the unsustainability of our current definitions of power.

And perhaps the greatest power of all is the courage to step off the board and reimagine the game entirely.