I wrote
>>[Host's Note: Lynette, you've hit right on the essential contradiction...
>>
>>"Empowered" means you have the power, not me.
>>
>>If I can empower you, then I can take it away and you are not "empowered."
>>Thus, the usual use, "I empower you to..." has a built-in contradiction.
And, Bill replied:
>Interesting insight by Rick.
>
>It seems true that if I have the power now, and I wish to empower Rick
>(for example) the act of empowering him is yet another use of my power. It
>is however a necessary first step if a transfer of power is going to take
>place ...snip...
Bill, and others, the idea I expressed is from Peter Senge; he often
talked about this it in speeches a year or so ago.
He goes on, saying roughly, "So, empowerment cannot come from another
human being. If someone else empowers you, they could take it away, so you
aren't truely empowered. True empowerment can only come from an idea.
"In the American tradition, were we empowered by the King of England? No.
Remember the phrase, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident...' That's
true empowerment! It can only come from an idea, not as something given by
another person."
This fits for me with something I've discussed a couple of times here,
that I don't think one should try to control another human being. I can
influence, I can help, but it's up to them whether they are empowered or
not. I've found this very helpful in my work.
-- Rick
--Richard Karash ("Rick") | <http://world.std.com/~rkarash> Speaker, Facilitator, Trainer | email: Richard@Karash.com "Towards learning organizations" | Host for Learning-Org Discussion (617)227-0106, fax (617)523-3839 | <http://www.learning-org.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>