Power (Almost) Always Corrupts

Go here: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15328544 — to read an excellent summary of some recent fascinating social research in the 21 January issue of The Economist.  Some clever researchers have established that power does indeed corrupt except when the person wielding power doesn't believe he or she deserves it.  In fact, such persons are more moral with power than without it.  A sense of entitlement rather than the power itself is the corrupting factor.  Coining a neologism, the study's authors call the heightened morality of those humble sort upon whom power is thrust "hypercrisy."

The writer of the article, following The Economist's silly habit of "explaining" human social behavior in the crudest naturalistic evolutionary terms, asserts that "hypercrisy might be a signal of submissiveness—one that is exaggerated in creatures that feel themselves to be in the wrong place in the hierarchy.  By applying reverse privileges to themselves, they hope to escape punishment from the real dominants."  One wonders if the writer is as credulous about passive/aggressive nature of his (or her) work.

Perhaps we should consider the words of the world's most humble and powerful man who noted that the "the greatest among you shall be your servant.  Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (Mt 23.11-12)  Or Jesus' follower Paul who enjoined his audience to "do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.  Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Phil. 2.3-4)

Power joined with humility—hypercrisy—is indeed rare.  Let us celebrate its beauty when we find it, not cook up what Kipling might have called a "just so" story.