essay about power corrupts

Why Power Corrupts

New research digs deeper into the social science behind why power brings out the best in some people and the worst in others

Christopher Shea

“Power tends to corrupt,” said Lord Acton, the 19th-century British historian. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” His maxim has been vividly illustrated in psychological studies, notably the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, which was halted when one group of students arbitrarily assigned to serve as “prison guards” over another group began to abuse their wards.

But new scholarship is bringing fresh subtlety to psychologists’ understanding of when power leads people to take ethical shortcuts—and when it doesn’t. Indeed, for some people, power seems to bring out their best. After all, good people do win elective office, says Katherine A. DeCelles, a professor of management at the University of Toronto, and no few business executives want to do good while doing well. “When you give good people power,” DeCelles says she wondered, are they more able than others “to enact that moral identity, to do what’s right?”

In a study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology , DeCelles and her co-authors found that the answer is yes. People’s sense of “moral identity”—the degree to which they thought it was important to their sense of self to be “caring,” “compassionate,” “fair,” “generous” and so on—shaped their responses to feelings of power.

DeCelles and her colleagues developed moral identity scores for two groups, 173 working adults and 102 undergraduates, by asking the participants to rate how important those ethically related attributes were to them. The researchers had some participants write an essay recalling an incident in which they felt powerful, while others wrote about an ordinary day. Then the participants took part in lab experiments to probe how they balanced self-interest against the common good.

The undergraduates were told they shared a pool of 500 points with other people, and they could take between zero and ten points for themselves. The more points they took, the better their odds of winning a $100 lottery. But if they took too many—there was no way of knowing what that tipping point was—the pot would empty and the lottery would be called off.

The participants who had just written about an ordinary day each took roughly 6.5 points, regardless of their moral-identity score. But among those who had been primed to think of themselves as powerful, the people with low moral-identity scores grabbed 7.5 points—and those with high moral-identity scores took only about 5.5.

In surveys, the last group showed a greater understanding of how their actions would affect other people, which is the crucial mechanism, DeCelles says. Power led them to take a broader, more communally centered perspective.

The experiment involving the adults found a similar relationship between moral identity, ethical behavior and innate aggressiveness. Assertive people who scored low on the moral-identity scale were more likely to say they’d cheated their employer in the past week than more passive types with similar moral-identity scores. But among those with high moral-identity scores, the assertive people were less likely to have cheated.

In sum, the study found, power doesn’t corrupt; it heightens pre-existing ethical tendencies. Which brings to mind another maxim, from Abraham Lincoln: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

Get the latest Science stories in your inbox.

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Workplace Articles & More

The power paradox, true power requires modesty and empathy, not force and coercion, argues dacher keltner . but what people want from leaders—social intelligence—is what is damaged by the experience of power..

“It is much safer to be feared than loved,” writes Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince , his classic 16th-century treatise advocating manipulation and occasional cruelty as the best means to power. Almost 500 years later, Robert Greene’s national bestseller, The 48 Laws of Power , would have made Machiavelli’s chest swell with pride. Greene’s book, bedside reading of foreign policy analysts and hip-hop stars alike, is pure Machiavelli. Here are a few of his 48 laws:

Law 3, Conceal Your Intentions. Law 6, Court Attention at All Costs. Law 12, Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm Your Victims. Law 15, Crush Your Enemy Totally. Law 18, Keep Others in Suspended Terror.

You get the picture.

Guided by centuries of advice like Machiavelli’s and Greene’s, we tend to believe that attaining power requires force, deception, manipulation, and coercion. Indeed, we might even assume that positions of power demand this kind of conduct—that to run smoothly, society needs leaders who are willing and able to use power this way.

As seductive as these notions are, they are dead wrong. Instead, a new science of power has revealed that power is wielded most effectively when it’s used responsibly by people who are attuned to, and engaged with the needs and interests of others. Years of research suggests that empathy and social intelligence are vastly more important to acquiring and exercising power than are force, deception, or terror.

This research debunks longstanding myths about what constitutes true power, how people obtain it, and how they should use it. But studies also show that once people assume positions of power, they’re likely to act more selfishly, impulsively, and aggressively, and they have a harder time seeing the world from other people’s points of view. This presents us with the paradox of power: The skills most important to obtaining power and leading effectively are the very skills that deteriorate once we have power.

The power paradox requires that we be ever vigilant against the corruptive influences of power and its ability to distort the way we see ourselves and treat others. But this paradox also makes clear how important it is to challenge myths about power, which persuade us to choose the wrong kinds of leaders and to tolerate gross abuses of power. Instead of succumbing to the Machiavellian worldview—which unfortunately leads us to select Machiavellian leaders—we must promote a different model of power, one rooted in social intelligence, responsibility, and cooperation.

Myth number one: Power equals cash, votes, and muscle

The term “power” often evokes images of force and coercion. Many people assume that power is most evident on the floor of the United States Congress or in corporate boardrooms. Treatments of power in the social sciences have followed suit, zeroing in on clashes over cash (financial wealth), votes (participation in the political decision making process), and muscle (military might).

But there are innumerable exceptions to this definition of power: a penniless two year old pleading for (and getting) candy in the check-out line at the grocery store, one spouse manipulating another for sex, or the success of nonviolent political movements in places like India or South Africa. Viewing power as cash, votes, and muscle blinds us to the ways power pervades our daily lives.

New psychological research has redefined power, and this definition makes clear just how prevalent and integral power is in all of our lives. In psychological science, power is defined as one’s capacity to alter another person’s condition or state of mind by providing or withholding resources—such as food, money, knowledge, and affection—or administering punishments, such as physical harm, job termination, or social ostracism. This definition de-emphasizes how a person actually acts, and instead stresses the individual’s capacity to affect others. Perhaps most importantly, this definition applies across relationships, contexts, and cultures. It helps us understand how children can wield power over their parents from the time they’re born, or how someone—say, a religious leader—can be powerful in one context (on the pulpit during a Sunday sermon) but not another (on a mind numbingly slow line at the DMV come Monday morning). By this definition, one can be powerful without needing to try to control, coerce, or dominate. Indeed, when people resort to trying to control others, it’s often a sign that their power is slipping.

This definition complicates our understanding of power. Power is not something limited to power-hungry individuals or organizations; it is part of every social interaction where people have the capacity to influence one another’s states, which is really every moment of life. Claims that power is simply a product of male biology miss the degree to which women have obtained and wielded power in many social situations. In fact, studies I’ve conducted find that people grant power to women as readily as men, and in informal social hierarchies, women achieve similar levels of power as men.

So power is not something we should (or can) avoid, nor is it something that necessarily involves domination and submission. We are negotiating power every waking instant of our social lives (and in our dreams as well, Freud argued). When we seek equality, we are seeking an effective balance of power, not the absence of power. We use it to win consent and social cohesion, not just compliance. To be human is to be immersed in power dynamics.

Myth number two: Machiavellians win in the game of power

One of the central questions concerning power is who gets it. Researchers have confronted this question for years, and their results offer a sharp rebuke to the Machiavellian view of power. It is not the manipulative, strategic Machiavellian who rises in power. Instead, social science reveals that one’s ability to get or maintain power, even in small group situations, depends on one’s ability to understand and advance the goals of other group members. When it comes to power, social intelligence—reconciling conflicts, negotiating, smoothing over group tensions—prevails over social Darwinism.

For instance, highly detailed studies of “chimpanzee politics” have found that social power among nonhuman primates is based less on sheer strength, coercion, and the unbridled assertion of self-interest, and more on the ability to negotiate conflicts, to enforce group norms, and to allocate resources fairly. More often than not, this research shows, primates who try to wield their power by dominating others and prioritizing their own interests will find themselves challenged and, in time, deposed by subordinates. ( Christopher Boehm describes this research in greater length in his essay .)

In my own research on human social hierarchies, I have consistently found that it is the more dynamic, playful, engaging members of the group who quickly garner and maintain the respect of their peers. Such outgoing, energetic, socially engaged individuals quickly rise through the ranks of emerging hierarchies.

Why social intelligence? Because of our ultrasociability. We accomplish most tasks related to survival and reproduction socially, from caring for our children to producing food and shelter. We give power to those who can best serve the interests of the group.

Time and time again, empirical studies find that leaders who treat their subordinates with respect, share power, and generate a sense of camaraderie and trust are considered more just and fair.

Social intelligence is essential not only to rising to power, but to keeping it. My colleague Cameron Anderson and I have studied the structure of social hierarchies within college dormitories over the course of a year, examining who is at the top and remains there, who falls in status, and who is less well-respected by their peers. We’ve consistently found that it is the socially engaged individuals who keep their power over time. In more recent work, Cameron has made the remarkable discovery that modesty may be critical to maintaining power. Individuals who are modest about their own power actually rise in hierarchies and maintain the status and respect of their peers, while individuals with an inflated, grandiose sense of power quickly fall to the bottom rungs.

So what is the fate of Machiavellian group members, avid practitioners of Greene’s 48 laws, who are willing to deceive, backstab, intimidate, and undermine others in their pursuit of power? We’ve found that these individuals do not actually rise to positions of power. Instead, their peers quickly recognize that they will harm others in the pursuit of their own self-interest, and tag them with a reputation of being harmful to the group and not worthy of leadership.

Cooperation and modesty aren’t just ethical ways to use power, and they don’t only serve the interests of a group; they’re also valuable skills for people who seek positions of power and want to hold onto them.

Myth number three: Power is strategically acquired, not given

A major reason why Machiavellians fail is that they fall victim to a third myth about power. They mistakenly believe that power is acquired strategically in deceptive gamesmanship and by pitting others against one another. Here Machiavelli failed to appreciate an important fact in the evolution of human hierarchies: that with increasing social intelligence, subordinates can form powerful alliances and constrain the actions of those in power. Power increasingly has come to rest on the actions and judgments of other group members. A person’s power is only as strong as the status given to that person by others.

The sociologist Erving Goffman wrote with brilliant insight about deference—the manner in which we afford power to others with honorifics, formal prose, indirectness, and modest nonverbal displays of embarrassment. We can give power to others simply by being respectfully polite.

My own research has found that people instinctively identify individuals who might undermine the interests of the group, and prevent those people from rising in power, through what we call “reputational discourse.” In our research on different groups, we have asked group members to talk openly about other members’ reputations and to engage in gossip. We’ve found that Machiavellians quickly acquire reputations as individuals who act in ways that are inimical to the interests of others, and these reputations act like a glass ceiling, preventing their rise in power. In fact, this aspect of their behavior affected their reputations even more than their sexual morality, recreational habits, or their willingness to abide by group social conventions.

In The Prince, Machiavelli observes,

“Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” He adds, “A prince ought, above all things, always to endeavor in every action to gain for himself the reputation of being a great and remarkable man.” By contrast, several Eastern traditions, such as Taoism and Confucianism , exalt the modest leader, one who engages with the followers and practices social intelligence. In the words of the Taoist philosopher Lao-tzu , “To lead the people, walk behind them.” Compare this advice to Machiavelli’s, and judge them both against years of scientific research. Science gives the nod to Lao-tzu.

The power paradox

“Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said the British historian Lord Acton . Unfortunately, this is not entirely a myth, as the actions of Europe’s monarchs, Enron’s executives, and out-of- control pop stars reveal. A great deal of research—especially from social psychology—lends support to Acton’s claim, albeit with a twist: Power leads people to act in impulsive fashion, both good and bad, and to fail to understand other people’s feelings and desires.

For instance, studies have found that people given power in experiments are more likely to rely on stereotypes when judging others, and they pay less attention to the characteristics that define those other people as individuals. Predisposed to stereotype, they also judge others’ attitudes, interests, and needs less accurately. One survey found that high-power professors made less accurate judgments about the attitudes of low-power professors than those low-power professors made about the attitudes of their more powerful colleagues. Power imbalances may even help explain the finding that older siblings don’t perform as well as their younger siblings on theory-of-mind tasks, which assess one’s ability to construe the intentions and beliefs of others.

Power even prompts less complex legal reasoning in Supreme Court justices. A study led by Stanford psychologist Deborah Gruenfeld compared the decisions of U.S. Supreme Court justices when they wrote opinions endorsing either the position of a majority of justices on the bench—a position of power—or the position of the vanquished, less powerful minority. Sure enough, when Gruenfeld analyzed the complexity of justices’ opinions on a vast array of cases, she found that justices writing from a position of power crafted less complex arguments than those writing from a low-power position.

A great deal of research has also found that power encourages individuals to act on their own whims, desires, and impulses. When researchers give people power in scientific experiments, those people are more likely to physically touch others in potentially inappropriate ways, to flirt in more direct fashion, to make risky choices and gambles, to make first offers in negotiations, to speak their mind, and to eat cookies like the Cookie Monster, with crumbs all over their chins and chests.

Perhaps more unsettling is the wealth of evidence that having power makes people more likely to act like sociopaths. High-power individuals are more likely to interrupt others, to speak out of turn, and to fail to look at others who are speaking. They are also more likely to tease friends and colleagues in hostile, humiliating fashion. Surveys of organizations find that most rude behaviors—shouting, profanities, bald critiques—emanate from the offices and cubicles of individuals in positions of power.

My own research has found that people with power tend to behave like patients who have damaged their brain’s orbitofrontal lobes (the region of the frontal lobes right behind the eye sockets), a condition that seems to cause overly impulsive and insensitive behavior. Thus the experience of power might be thought of as having someone open up your skull and take out that part of your brain so critical to empathy and socially-appropriate behavior.

Power may induce more harmful forms of aggression as well. In the famed Stanford Prison Experiment , psychologist Philip Zimbardo randomly assigned Stanford undergraduates to act as prison guards or prisoners—an extreme kind of power relation. The prison guards quickly descended into the purest forms of power abuse, psychologically torturing their peers, the prisoners. Similarly, anthropologists have found that cultures where rape is prevalent and accepted tend to be cultures with deeply entrenched beliefs in the supremacy of men over women.

This leaves us with a power paradox. Power is given to those individuals, groups, or nations who advance the interests of the greater good in socially-intelligent fashion.

Yet unfortunately, having power renders many individuals as impulsive and poorly attuned to others as your garden-variety frontal lobe patient, making them prone to act abusively and lose the esteem of their peers. What people want from leaders—social intelligence—is what is damaged by the experience of power.

When we recognize this paradox and all the destructive behaviors that flow from it, we can appreciate the importance of promoting a more socially-intelligent model of power. Social behaviors are dictated by social expectations. As we debunk long-standing myths and misconceptions about power, we can better identify the qualities powerful people should have, and better understand how they should wield their power. As a result, we’ll have much less tolerance for people who lead by deception, coercion, or undue force. No longer will we expect these kinds of antisocial behaviors from our leaders and silently accept them when they come to pass.

We’ll also start to demand something more from our colleagues, our neighbors, and ourselves. When we appreciate the distinctions between responsible and irresponsible uses of power—and the importance of practicing the responsible, socially-intelligent form of it—we take a vital step toward promoting healthy marriages, peaceful playgrounds, and societies built on cooperation and trust.

About the Author

Dacher Keltner

Uc berkeley.

Dacher Keltner, Ph.D. , is the founding director of the Greater Good Science Center and a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of The Power Paradox: How We Gain and Lose Influence and Born to Be Good , and a co-editor of The Compassionate Instinct .

You May Also Enjoy

Outstanding! I found this article thanks to Bob Sutton posting it on Twitter, and I’m glad I did.  I would offer that even the “new” definition of power, “one’s capacity to alter another’s condition… by providing or withholding resources” still conflates power and force.  I would offer that, particularly in the social interactions, power is indeed one’s ability to alter another’s condition, but it arises (as much of the article goes on to argue) almost entirely as the gift of the other. 

The reason why bosses in particular go bad, in my opinion, is that they mistake the force that their position grants them as power granted them by their subordinates.  Disaster follows, typically first for the subordinates.

Many thanks for this excellent article.

Jonathan Magid | 3:11 pm, September 18, 2010 | Link

Great, i am happy to know about this article, thanks to Dan Rockwell who post it on twitter.

Let me articulate the issue this way, I think Machiavellian leaders use the same definition of power you stated here, however the difference lies in the socially intelligent, respectful, high self esteem subordinates who will rank those leaders low once they discover their Machiavellian intentions, but by maintaining ignorant, low self esteem, irresponsible group of followers the Machiavellian leader maintains his/her position.

In the new organizations where leaders are chosen and expected to lead intelligent group, the Machiavellian leaders will not hold on long, the group power will change their position for the greater good of the ones who assigned them.

Perhapse, this is the reason why Machiavellian leaders survived, the solution lies in educating ourselves as you said not to accept them, not to tolerate their potential harm to the group.

Thanks a lot Dacher for the great article, Huda

Huda | 1:07 am, September 19, 2010 | Link

Brilliant insights Dacher.  I’ve consistently found that power and leadership are best wielded by people who are self-aware and understand how to help others grow and succeed.  When we let go of our need to appear a certain way or dominate others we can then focus on helping others shine.  We then gain more respect and actual power (over ourselves and in collaboration with others).  As you’ve so ably noted, the less we seek power the more we receive.

Guy Farmer | 2:28 pm, September 19, 2010 | Link

Great article! Thanks for the mindful insights.

Paul Rudolf Seebacher | 1:40 pm, October 5, 2010 | Link

I was wondered! You open my eyes. But is your article mean that power branch “searches” people who was damaged by the experience of power?  Thank you Andrey Irkutsk (East Siberia)

Andrey | 8:51 am, October 19, 2010 | Link

Brilliantly put. Many of us waste our resources in the early stages of our career, forgetful that the race is won by the staying power of the runners! And succeed with staying power ones is required to have mastered socially-intelligent, humility and passion. Indeed what we you about the pursuit of power, particularly if you are thinking about power at the dictatorial level or becoming a leader, is that you have to have a clear, relentless focus, and you have got to stay focused and attending on your target for quite a long period of time.  Yet much of the old research indicates that there is a very profound gender difference in the ability to maintain focus and concentration, to the extent that one gender clearly is unable to maintain focus and attention at the requisite level, which has led to some psychologists to say that one gender – perhaps should not be doing certain professions which require concentration and focus – a line of though which is very controversial idea indeed in society today! So Dr. Dacher, by inserting social intelligence at centre of power-play she has armed those seeking leadership with a perfect arsenal on how to best wield power in a manner that is more humane –helping other to grow and help themselves to succeed!

thanks for the article…..........

S. Luwemba Kawumi | 6:32 am, November 30, 2010 | Link

Not being armed with the data from the various studies, I found two glaring problems:   1- While I find the empathy argument interesting and likely true (plus strangely intuitive, which the author says it isn’t), this seems to have a scale component the author doesn’t acknowledge.  The kind of empathy derived power acquisition only seems to work in the small scale.  Go to a much larger scale, say nationally, then the Machiavellian model seems more operational.  Take the Republican party;  they get and keep power by getting people to vote against their own interests by all kinds of Machiavellian manipulations.  Personally, I maintain this is the only way for them to hold power given their specific public policy advocacy.  They have gotten the masses to abandon rationality, really brilliant, actually.

2- The author doesn’t mention how those in power can keep it in an information vacuum.  I think of the City Council in my town of Emeryville and the lack of a newspaper here.  The entrenched council majority seems to use both Machiavellian techniques and the more empathy centered ones in their day to day expression of power.  This is how they depose challengers I’ve found but come election time, it’s the general population’s lack of information that works to their advantage.

Brian Donahue | 8:40 am, January 27, 2011 | Link

thanks for this great informative post i appreciate it.

xenki | 4:59 pm, February 21, 2011 | Link

The Stanford study has interesting implications about power abuse. It is no surprise when there is such a divergent power base as in this study between guards and inmates acted out by students how quickly the power paradox is acted out. Great article look forward to reading more in the future.

Carl | 8:17 pm, February 22, 2011 | Link

Upon a second reading, I think the author’s conceits suffer from a need to posit a new angle on this age old problem (hence it’s too academic).  It seems to fill a need in the reader to see a greater justice; one levied by an invisible force, at play.

Brian Donahue | 11:08 pm, February 22, 2011 | Link

Ask the chinese people if lao tzu and confucianism proved to be more effective than a strong armed government body.  Consider “the Ocean people” and all of their exploitation of the modest philosophy of the chinese rulers during the colonial periods.  No, China is becoming a force on this planet again and I daresay it’s partly because they’ve pushed aside their confucian roots and become more machiavellian. Other than that small issue, great article.  Really makes you think.

steve | 12:31 pm, December 18, 2011 | Link

The myths the author debunks and the alternatives he proposes may be the ideal, but in reality, power has largely been seized and maintained by the 5 laws listed at the beginning of the article. Even in the USA, the most powerful democratic country in the world, one may identify from the public record where presidents have used some or all of the “laws” at some point.

John Wong | 12:42 pm, July 12, 2012 | Link

My daughter was looking for some useful article for her school project. I referrred yourblog to her. She found it very useful.

Design Inspiration | 9:35 am, December 14, 2012 | Link

This article — and everything on this site — is funded by readers like you.

Become a subscribing member today. Help us continue to bring “the science of a meaningful life” to you and to millions around the globe.

• Contributors
• Valuing Black Lives
• Black Issues in Philosophy
• Blog Announcements
• Climate Matters
• Genealogies of Philosophy
• Graduate Student Council (GSC)
• Graduate Student Reflection
• Into Philosophy
• Member Interviews
• On Congeniality
• Philosophy as a Way of Life
• Philosophy in the Contemporary World
• Precarity and Philosophy
• Recently Published Book Spotlight
• Starting Out in Philosophy
• Syllabus Showcase
• Teaching and Learning Video Series
• Undergraduate Philosophy Club
• Women in Philosophy
• Diversity and Inclusiveness
• Issues in Philosophy
• Public Philosophy
• Work/Life Balance
• Submissions
• Journal Surveys
• APA Connect

The Psychology of Political Power: Does Power Corrupt or is it Magnetic to the Most Corruptible?

In January 2022, I attended a conference on ‘Political Power, Morality and Corruption’. A Socratic dialogue with fellow scholars led me back to one question that epistemologically haunts political theory and philosophy to date—Does power corrupt or is it magnetic to the most corruptible? The cornerstone that this question posits on is antithetical to the idea of power duality as malefic or benefic. Instead, this problem statement is trying to explore and exact the fundamentals of political power. While the former part of the question is striving to deconstruct the soma of power itself, the latter construct of the question is focusing on the agency of an individual with political power.

Now, if you have read Frank Herbert’s  Chapterhouse Dune (1920 – 1986), he writes, “All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted.” Rather than saying absolute power corrupts absolutely, Herbert reveals a common metaphysical denominator: corruptibility, that fundamentally connects all those with political power. However, his sematic interpretation gives birth to more questions than answers. Suppose we take Herbert’s argument in consideration and assume that the most corruptible are indeed attracted to power. In that case, the global political infrastructure as we know today, is then built on the building block of corruption by its very virtue. For example, the 4th edition of the Global Corruption Index (GCI 2021)  covered 196 countries and territories, and provided a comprehensive overview of the state of corruption around the world based on 43 variables. This extensive data revealed that only 52 countries have a low corruption index, with Finland and Norway leading the way. On the other hand, the rest 144 countries are suffering from profane corruption. Using Herbert’s interpretation of power and corruption, should we conclude that political corruption, which is about privatization of average citizens and the use of the public sphere to promote private interests, is the foundational political infrastructure of these 144 countries? And if this assertion is true, does it mean that every government representative of these 144 countries are fundamentally corrupt? Herbert’s simplistic interpretation of the problem statement creates a moral conundrum of either this or that, rather than exploring the connection between the two variables—power and corruption.

Power does not corrupt. It amplifies and reveals a leader’s predispositional traits .

For decades, social psychologists were convinced that power corrupts. One of the key demonstrations of this assertion was the classic Stanford Prison Simulation Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971), where volunteers were randomly assigned to play the role of prisoners or prison guards. As the day passed by, it was observed that the students who were given the role of prison guards became sadistic and exercised their power to subjugate prisoners by taking away their clothes and forcing them to sleep on concrete floors. This subduing was absolute barbaric and callous in nature. The results were shocking. However, the Stanford Prison Experiment failed to explore one crucial variable—the behavioural and cognitive pattern of students who willingly participated and were recruited to be a part of ‘study of prison life.’ So, Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland (2007) conducted an experiment, “Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty?” They wanted to study what kind of people participate and are drawn to the likes of the Stanford Prison Experiment. The research revealed that “volunteers for the prison study scored significantly higher on measures of the abuse-related dispositions of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance and lower on empathy and altruism, two qualities inversely related to aggressive abuse.”

What Carnahan and McFarland’s experiment revealed was that power doesn’t corrupt, but it is a phenomenon that is monopolized by the agency of an individual. Power amplifies and exposes cognitive and behavioral predispositions that already exists within you. It merely reveals your innate tendencies, but it does not corrupt. Let’s take another example of a democratic statesman who wants to introduce a new healthcare bill for his people, but is unexpectedly confronted with an ethical conundrum—he can either strengthen his political power and wealth by collaborating with pharmaceutical giants and increase the prices of the medicines in concern (demand-supply chain), or he can metamorphosize his proposed bill into reality and benefit his subjects. What will he do? Since he already has procured political power and is deliberating on actualizing his healthcare bill to empower people, power here has not corrupted him. In fact, the argument that power corrupts collapses because if power indeed corrupts, this democratic statesman would not have proposed a healthcare bill for the welfare of his people to begin with. However, if he decides to enact the bill in favor of pharmaceutical moguls to increase his wealth and political status quo, it would be due to his predispositioned behavioral and cognitive schema for corruptibility. How he responds to this ethical conundrum will mirror his political psyche. It has nothing to do with power being essentially corruptible. Power only amplifies and exposes a leader’s predispositioned traits. 

Friedrich Hayek   makes a similar point in his chapter ‘Why the worst get on top’ in  The Road to Serfdom (1943), where he highlights that individuals who rise to the top in the government are those who want to wield power and those who are most ruthless in using power. He writes, “Neither the government administration of a concentration camp nor the Ministry of Propaganda is suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet, positions like these create a totalitarian state. So, when a distinguished American economist concludes that the probability of people in power disliking the possession and exercise of power is low, is similar to falsely assuming that the probability of an extremely tender-hearted person to desire a position of a whipping-master in a slave plantation is high.”

Recently, psychologists have re-investigated this phenomenon and theorised that rather than being a corrupting influence, power amplifies leaders’ innate tendencies. For example, extensive research in ‘Leader corruption depends on power and testosterone’   by Samuel Bendahan, Christian Zehnder, Francois P. Pralong, and John Antonakis used incentivized experimental games to manipulate leaders in power. Here, leaders had complete freedom to decide monthly pay-outs for themselves and their followers. Now, leaders could have made a prosocial decision to benefit the public good. However, they chose to abuse their power by invoking antisocial decisions, which reduced the total pay-outs of their followers but boosted the leaders’ earnings with a high margin. The researchers write, “In Study 1 ( N  = 478), we found that both amount of followers and discretionary choices independently predicted leader corruption. Study 2 ( N  = 240) examined how power and individual differences (e.g., personality, hormones) affected leader corruption over time; power interacted with endogenous testosterone in predicting corruption, which was highest when the leader power and baseline testosterone were both high. Honesty predicted initial level of leader’s antisocial decisions; however, honesty did not shield leaders from the corruptive effect of power.” 

Concluding with Caligula—The Mad Roman Emperor!

After years of witnessing the most barbaric purges, treason laws, exiles, execution, and corruption of all time during Tiberius’s rule, Caligula (37—41 AD) was seen as a breath of fresh air when he took the throne. After going through despondent years of constant fear, Caligula’s initiation was perceived as a hope for a flourishing Roman republic. At first, Caligula lived up to the expectations of the Roman people. He brought back many people exiled by Tiberius and ceremoniously burned the records of the infamous Treason Trails held by Sejanus under the order of Tiberius. This act was celebrated and made Caligula popular and well-liked among the Senate. He then took a step further and eliminated unpopular hefty taxes, initiated constructions of harbors that created massive employment opportunities for Roman citizens, and staged lavish events like chariot races, gladiator shows, and theatre plays to entertain his people. He was indeed a breath of fresh air after Tiberius. 

But, after seven months of his rule, things changed for the worst. Caligula started to use and abuse his political powers so dauntlessly that it pushed Rome into a dark age of political and economic instability. He went on a rampage of committing murder, adultery, and acts of debauchery. His eccentricities became more murderous, including restating the very Treason Trials that he had ended. Dressed in silk robes and covered in jewels, Caligula pretended he was a god. He made it mandatory for his senators to grovel and kiss his feet and seduced their wives at lavish dinner parties. He wanted his statue to be erected in the temple at Jerusalem, which at the point, would have been highly controversial in a region that was already prone to revolt against the Romans. Luckily, Herod Agrippa, who ruled Palestine then, convinced him not to do so. Additionally, since Caligula was spending vast amount of money on his lavish lifestyle, he emptied Rome’s treasury. To reverse this damage, he started blackmailing Roman leaders and senates, and confiscated their properties and wealth. 

There is no denying that there was a method to Caligula’s political madness, but power didn’t corrupt him. If it did, the first initial seven months of ruling Rome after Tiberius, Roman republic would not have experienced economic, political, and cultural growth. However, power certainly did amplify and expose his innate characteristics of corruptibility and debauchery. Caligula’s madness of abusing political power and tyrannical reign grew out of control. An assassination plot structured against him and he was murdered after being stabbed over 30 times by a cabal of Praetorian guards in 41 A.D. This reminds me of what Robert Caro mentioned in his book  The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson (2012), “Power always reveals. When a man is climbing, trying to persuade others to give him power, concealment is necessary. But, as soon as the man obtains more power, camouflage becomes less necessary.” To conclude, it is not that the power corrupts or is magnetic to the most corruptible. The truth is—power only reveals who you truly are.

• Parul Verma

Parul Verma is a political analyst and a human rights activist. Using political philosophy, her work analyses power relation between State-subject, transnational conflict, peace-building and peace-keeping in relation to Israel-Palestine, Northern Ireland and Kashmir. She has also written extensively on corporate governance and violence against women in India. Her work has been published in more than 20+ academic journals and international media establishments. Her part-time job involves talking gibberish to her two naughty rabbits – Whiskey and Beer! For any query or feedback, contact her at parul_edu[at] icloud.com .

• Editor: Maryellen Stohlman-Vanderveen
• Frank Herbert
• Philosophy of Psychology
• political power
• social psychology

RELATED ARTICLES

Recently published book spotlight: the green & the blue, new conference: the lyceum project, subversive epistemic practices in the face of sexual violence, recently published book spotlight: philosophical conversations, lessons in love from nonmonogamy, undermining autonomy one swipe at a time.

It would seem that power is an intoxicant like alcohol, reducing the inhibitions against anti-social behavior. But politicians are also embedded in a more structured system than simple social interaction and they have gradually built that system to increase their power.

Politicians over the decades have built a warehouse of intoxicants and in the past two years they have been drunk on that power.

“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys” as the P. J. O’Rourke wrote. This is not simple cynicism. Those in power tend to think that their moral and intellectual superiority make them eminently qualified to do what they think is best, with decisions made in that alcohol laden warehouse of government. They have also funneled power to other institutions in order to amplify their own power. The last two years have revealed just how little power the individual has in the face of political power. Power emasculates restraint – just like alcohol.

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.” – Karl Popper

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page. Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.

Advanced search

Posts You May Enjoy

Undrip’s limits on corrective reforms to the basic structure, women in philosophy behaving badly or madly, metaphysics, colin c. smith, coded displacement, creating change for students, teachers, and the discipline, the mesoamerican philosophy renaissance, philosophy and the mirror of technology: a blog series on science,....

clock This article was published more than  5 years ago

Power doesn’t corrupt. It just exposes who leaders really are.

Another day, another leader seems to fall from a seat of power. The #MeToo movement has shown us devastating evidence of how male superiors have abused their power over female subordinates. The Catholic Church has offered demoralizing revelations of how priests have abused their power over nuns and children.

When leaders cross the line, we often blame power. As Lord Acton famously expressed it , “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

But it’s not entirely true.

Last year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, I wanted to understand the impact of power on people. I sat down with two dozen leaders, including the current or former CEOs of Microsoft, Google, General Motors, Goldman Sachs and the Gates Foundation. Over and over again, I heard that power doesn’t change people as much as it accentuates their preexisting traits.

As Slack founder and CEO Stewart Butterfield quipped, “It doesn’t make you an [expletive]. It just makes you more of who you already were.”

That’s actually a good summary of the new line of thinking in psychology: Power is like an amplifier. Whoever we were before just gets louder.

In one experiment , psychologists set up an annoying fan so that it would blow in people’s faces. The participants’ odds of moving it away, turning it off, or unplugging it spiked from 42 percent to 69 percent if they had just written about a time when they had power.

In other experiments , when people were reminded of feeling powerful, they were more likely to express their own opinions and ideas instead of conforming to others. And when they were assigned the role of manager rather than subordinate before a negotiation, they were more likely to bargain their own way instead of adapting to an opponent’s style.

Power disinhibits us. It releases us from the shackles of social pressure . Gaining influence and authority frees us up to act on our real wishes and show our true colors . Few would argue that we need look any further than the current White House occupant to see the ultimate example of how power can magnify a person’s personality.

For decades, psychologists were convinced instead that power corrupts. One of the key demonstrations was the classic Stanford prison simulation , where students were randomly assigned to play the role of prisoners or prison guards. The guards ended up taking away the prisoners’ clothes and forcing them to sleep on concrete floors.

President Lyndon Johnson and power

“In only a few days, our guards became sadistic,” psychologist Philip Zimbardo said. The “power of a host of situational variables can dominate an individual’s will to resist.”

The results were so shocking that a critical detail was overlooked: the students who showed up had been recruited to participate in a “study of prison life.” When psychologists ran an experiment to figure out what kinds of people are drawn to that kind of study, they found that volunteers for a prison study scored about 26 percent higher on aggression and belief in social dominance, 12 percent higher on narcissism and 10 percent higher on authoritarianism and Machiavellianism than people who signed up for psychological studies in general.

Power didn’t corrupt ordinary people. It corrupted people who already leaned toward corruption. And it wasn’t the first time.

Back in the late 1930s, a man fresh out of law school was trying his first case when the judge threatened to disbar him: “I have serious doubts whether you have the ethical qualifications to practice law,” the judge said.

The lawyer’s name was Richard Nixon.

How too much focus on ‘superstar’ employees enables harassment

At the time, Nixon admitted to taking questionable actions without his client’s authority. Power didn’t corrupt him; he corrupted power. Being president revealed to the outside world who he was all along.

Consider another lawyer, who was running for Senate but withdrew from the election because he was afraid that if he ran, he would split the vote and cause a corrupt candidate to win. After he was later elected president, he used his authority a little differently. On a weekly basis, he held open office hours to hear the concerns of ordinary citizens, often for more than four hours a day.

That lawyer’s name? Abraham Lincoln.

If you believe power corrupts, it’s hard to explain Lincoln. Being president didn’t just fail to bring out the worst in him; it brought out the best. As Lincoln’s biographer Robert Green Ingersoll put it: “Nothing discloses real character like the use of power. . . . If you wish to know what a man really is, give him power.”

To predict how people will use power, you need to figure out what their motives, values and identities are before they have it. Are they generous givers or selfish takers ?

In another experiment , psychologists assigned people a set of tasks and let them delegate some to a colleague. People who tend to be “givers” claimed the long, boring ones for themselves and gave away the short, interesting tasks. So did more selfish people — when they lacked power.

But when they were put in a position of influence, the selfish “takers” stopped being fakers. They hogged the quick, exciting work and dumped the long, dull responsibilities on a colleague. You can even get this effect by just letting selfish people sit in the large desk chair in an office instead of the guest chair: They abused their assumed power and kept the easy, interesting work for themselves.

That’s what happened to Nixon: Sitting in the ultimate seat of power amplified his unethical tendencies.

“Power doesn’t always corrupt,” author Robert Caro has said , reflecting on Lyndon B. Johnson. “Power always reveals. When you have enough power to do what you always wanted to do, then you see what the guy always wanted to do.”

When we claim that power corrupts, we let powerful people off the hook. How you use authority reveals your character: Selfish leaders hoard power for personal gain. Servant leaders share power for social good. And the ultimate test of character for people in power is how they treat people who lack it.

Grant, an organizational psychologist at Wharton, is the author of “ Originals ” and the host of the TED podcast WorkLife . This op-ed is based on his Audible Original, “ Power Moves .”

Essay on Power Corruption

Students are often asked to write an essay on Power Corruption in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Power Corruption

What is power corruption.

Power corruption means when someone with a lot of control or authority starts to use it in bad ways. This person might make unfair decisions, take more than their share, or hurt others to stay in charge.

Why Does Power Corrupt?

People with power often start to think they are better than others. They might stop listening to advice or think rules don’t apply to them. This can lead to making choices that only help themselves.

Effects of Power Corruption

When someone in power is corrupt, it can make things worse for everyone. People lose trust in leaders, and society can suffer. It’s not just about money; it’s about fairness and safety too.

Stopping Power Corruption

To stop power corruption, we need clear rules and ways to check on people in power. Everyone should be treated the same by the law, and bad behavior must have consequences to prevent corruption.

250 Words Essay on Power Corruption

Power corruption means when someone with a lot of control or authority starts to use it in a bad way. Imagine a class monitor who starts taking extra cookies just because they can. That’s a simple example of power corruption. When people get power, sometimes they forget to think about what’s right and wrong.

Why Power Corrupts

People often say, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This means the more power you have, the easier it is to use it badly. A person may start thinking they’re better than others or that rules don’t apply to them. This can lead to unfair treatment and bad decisions.

When someone with power is corrupt, it can hurt a lot of people. For example, if a mayor uses the city’s money for their own fun instead of fixing parks or schools, the whole town suffers. Kids might not have a nice place to play or good books to learn from.

To stop power corruption, there need to be rules that even powerful people must follow. Also, everyone should be able to speak up if they see someone using power in the wrong way. Think of it like a game where even the referee has to play fair.

In short, power corruption is when powerful people make bad choices that can hurt others. It’s important to have rules and brave people who can help keep power in check. This way, everyone gets treated fairly, and power is used for good things.

500 Words Essay on Power Corruption

Power corruption is when someone with a lot of control or authority starts to use it in bad ways for their own gain. Imagine you have a class monitor who is supposed to make sure everyone follows the rules. But instead, they start breaking the rules themselves and let their friends do it too because they think no one can stop them. That’s a simple example of power corruption.

Why Does Power Corruption Happen?

People often become corrupt with power because they think they won’t get caught or punished. They might start thinking they are better than others and deserve more. It’s like when someone cheats in a game to win because they want the prize all to themselves. They might start out with good intentions, but as they get more power, they begin to change and make selfish choices.

When someone with power is corrupt, it hurts everyone. Think of a teacher who only helps certain students because they give her gifts. This isn’t fair to the other students, right? In the same way, power corruption can lead to unfair treatment, and people lose trust in those who are supposed to be leaders. It can also make problems in society worse because the person with power isn’t trying to fix them anymore.

How to Spot Power Corruption

To spot power corruption, you should look for signs like someone suddenly having lots of things they couldn’t afford before or making rules that only help them and their friends. It’s like noticing that the class monitor always gets extra time on the computer while no one else does. If you see things that don’t seem right or fair, it could be a sign of corruption.

Stopping power corruption is tough but not impossible. One way is to make sure there are clear rules about what leaders can and can’t do. It’s like having a rule that the class monitor can’t pick only their friends for fun activities. Another way is to have checks, where other people can check what the person with power is doing. This is like having a teacher watch over the class monitor.

Everyone’s Role

Everyone has a role in fighting power corruption. Just like in a classroom where all students can help by being honest and speaking up if they see something wrong, in society, everyone can help by being aware and not letting the corrupt behavior slide. If people work together and support each other, they can make a big difference in keeping power in check.

In conclusion, power corruption is when someone misuses their authority for selfish reasons. It can make things unfair and break people’s trust. To fight it, there need to be rules and ways to check on those with power. Everyone can help by being alert and brave enough to speak up against unfairness. By understanding and acting against power corruption, even students can help make sure that everyone plays by the rules.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Power And Privilege
• Essay on Power And Authority
• Essay on Power Abuse

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Student Essay: Does Power Corrupt?

George Orwell’s  Animal Farm tells the story of the progress of the animal-led farm, Napoleon the boar’s rise to power, and his descent toward totalitarian rule. Acton’s concept arguably shows up in the book, but is it true? Power as such does not corrupt, although power does bring out and emphasize evil. In Animal Farm , there are examples of creatures with power who are not corrupt, and examples of creatures without power who are.

To begin, power does not always corrupt. Literacy (which represents education and intelligence) is certainly a form of power in Animal Farm . It allows the animals to do things like designate laws and gain knowledge. Now, some of the animals do abuse this power, twisting the laws originally agreed upon by the animals to their own liking. The original commandments promote the welfare of all animals and are the result of the animals’ attempt to avoid their former owner’s mistakes. They ban drinking alcohol, associating with humans, sleeping in beds, wearing clothes, and killing other animals. Napoleon makes subtle adjustments, such as changing “No animal shall drink alcohol” to “No animal shall drink alcohol to excess ” and rewording “No animal shall kill any other animal” to read “No animal shall kill any other animal without cause ,” until the original commandments have been completely butchered, leaving only, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Yet if power as such corrupts, then literacy should always corrupt. However, there are numerous instances within Animal Farm where animals are not corrupted by this ability. One clear example involves Snowball, one of the pigs who opposed Napoleon. Snowball records the original seven commandments. He uses his literacy to study military methods, to defend Animal Farm from human attempts to recapture it. Snowball also reads about different methods in farming to save the animals labor, and studies building to design a windmill to provide electricity. Throughout the novel, Snowball never abuses his literacy. The donkey, Benjamin, likewise manages to learn to read and write. As a result, he nearly saves Boxer the horse when Napoleon sells the trusting horse to the knackers, nor does Benjamin use literacy to take advantage of his fellow creatures.

Power itself does not corrupt, but it reveals and magnifies corruption that is already present in many people, powerful or not.

Conversely, several animals on the farm act corruptly, but some do so with little to no power. Napoleon exhibits terrible cruelty as the leader of Animal Farm, and this lends credence to the idea that power corrupts. But the cat begins shirking his duties right from the start. While all the other animals labor to raise food, the cat disappears, but when food is served, the cat is present. This feline takes advantage of the hard-working farm animals; even though he has no power, he is corrupt. Likewise, Mollie the horse often dishonestly avoids work. She is “not good at getting up in the mornings, and [has] a way of leaving work early on the grounds that there [is] a stone in her hoof.” She eventually betrays the animals, abandoning the farm due to her vanity and desire for sugar. Mollie too lacks power of any kind. Corruption is found at every level of power, including none. This is no surprise if one believes what Scripture teaches about humans: mankind is fallen. All are born with a sinful nature, and thus corruption is found in all kinds of people, regardless of their power or status.

One may still wonder, however: why does power seem to corrupt? This is primarily because the effects of corruption are more widespread and evident when an individual holds more power. Increased power accentuates existing corruption. The pigs are smarter than most of the other animals, and they know it. Squealer slyly persuades the simpler animals that the pigs must consume the coveted milk and apples because of the importance of their brainpower. This pride leads them to justify thinking only of themselves, completely abandoning their original principles, and, ultimately, placing themselves in totalitarian rule over the others.

So, if people are fallen and power accentuates evil, how can anyone rule without corruption? As a Christian, the present writer believes that God is omnipotent. If one believed that morality goes down as power increases, then God should be the most corrupt ruler of all, but this is utterly false. He is a God of justice and righteousness; unlike mankind, he is not fallen. With God’s help and a firm moral base, it is possible to live honestly and honorably, whether in power or in poverty.

Mark Epstein is a 16-year-old homeschool student. He enjoys writing, mathematics, music, languages, government, and debate; his hobbies include reading, mountain biking, and airsoft. He is considering undergraduate studies in engineering and law.

___________________________________________________________________________________

If you liked this essay, you might also enjoy our series on “the Great Conversation,” featuring posts on ideas like fate and oligarchy and the soul . And try our podcast, Anchored , where our founder Jeremy Tate sits down every week to discuss education and culture with leading advocates and intellectuals.

Published on 11th September, 2020.

Share this post:

Start typing and press enter to search.

The meaning and origin of the expression: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

What's the meaning of the phrase 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

The proverbial saying 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' conveys the opinion that, as a person's power increases, their moral sense diminishes.

Last updated date: 16th December 2023

How to use this phrase

The documentary on political regimes clearly illustrated how power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely, leading to the erosion of democratic principles.

Origin - the short version

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is the best known quotation of the 19th century British politician Lord Acton. He borrowed the idea from several other writers who had previously expressed the same thought in different words.

Origin - the full story

Absolute monarchies are those in which all power is given to or, as is more often the case, taken by, the monarch. Examples of monarchs who corrupted their power include Roman emperors, who declared themselves gods, and Napoleon Bonaparte, who declared himself an emperor.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" arose as part of a quotation by the expansively named and impressively hirsute John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). The historian and moralist, who was otherwise known simply as Lord Acton, expressed this opinion in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

The saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" was coined by the English historian Lord Acton in 1887.

The text is a favourite of collectors of quotations and is always included in anthologies. If you are looking for the exact "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" wording, then Acton is your man.

Although Acton coined the phrase, but he didn't invent the idea. Something similar had been said by another English politician with no shortage of names - William Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham . Pitt said this in a speech in 1770:

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"

Acton is likely to have taken his lead from the writings of the French republican poet and politician Alphonse de Lamartine. An English translation of Lamartine's essay France and England: a Vision of the Future was published in London in 1848 and included this:

It is not only the slave or serf who is ameliorated in becoming free. The master himself did not gain less in every point of view, for absolute power corrupts the best natures.

Whether it is Lamartine or his anonymous English translator who can claim to have coined 'absolute power corrupts' we can't be sure. What we can be sure about is that it came before Lord Acton's more famous version. Whether Acton was aware of Lamartine's essay we can't now tell.

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is one of the proverbial sayings that seems to be proved correct by experience of people's actual behaviour.

It was coined by the English nobleman Lord Acton in 1857, using similar ideas expressed by several of his contemporaries.

See also: the List of Proverbs .

See also: Quotations .

Phrase trend in print

Here we see the frequency of the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" in printed sources over time. First picked up in 1829, remaining low and stable until a dramatic increase around the 1940s, peaking in the late 1960s, followed by fluctuations but generally maintaining a higher frequency thereafter

Famous uses in TV and film

By Gary Martin

Gary Martin is a writer and researcher on the origins of phrases and the creator of the Phrase Finder website. Over the past 26 years more than 700 million of his pages have been downloaded by readers. He is one of the most popular and trusted sources of information on phrases and idioms.

Power and Corruption in Animal Farm

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” is a quote from George Orwell’s novel, Animal Farm, that conveys a sense of the central themes of class, power and corruption, and language and propaganda that play out in the novel (112). Through the experiences and society created by a group of farm animals, Orwell is really suggesting that human society is flawed in many of the same manners that play out as themes in his book. Concerns over the separation of class, power and corruption wielded by those in positions of authority, and usage of language to manipulate and persuade others drive the storyline as Orwell supports how these themes translate to the human experience.

“Somehow it seemed as though the farm had grown richer without making the animals themselves any richer-except, of course, for the pigs and the dogs,” demonstrates how the animals are separated by class where some reap more benefits than others (Orwell 129). As the animals struggle to produce for the humans, not all the animals are treated the same or get the same rewards, so there is a class system among the animals. While some animals are aware of the inequality, others are not, which is how it plays out in human society. Orwell is trying to tell mankind to treat people fairly or society will suffer. If all the animals were equally productive and reaped the same benefits, then there wouldn’t be a plot to the novel. The separation of class is an important element in the upheaval that occurs in the book that highlights power and corruption.

“Napoleon is always right,” is a quote that demonstrates Orwell’s use of power and corruption in the novel (Orwell 56). No one can be completely right all the time, yet the animals look to Napoleon to solve all of their problems and they don’t think much past that. Orwell is highlighting how mankind blindly follows those in power because of the power they wield, but without thought to their motives. He is suggesting that society could benefit from thinking more about who people are instead of the power that they hold. There are good and bad people everywhere and just because they make it to a position of authority doesn’t mean they are right for the position. He is telling us to think for ourselves. Yet, as with the animals, not all the people are capable of thinking and understanding at the same level, so does this even work? Perhaps there is a need for authority, whether corrupt or not, to guide those who cannot think for themselves. Either way, Orwell is providing us a glimpse into the problems associated with blindly following power and authority when corruption is involved.

Orwell uses the seven commandments to highlight how language is used to manipulate and control the animals (Orwell 24-25). He continues this use of persuasive language throughout the novel to show how words can be used as propaganda to persuade others. This is much the same as human society. Propaganda is used to make people buy products through commercials, or endorse political ideas. Again, Orwell is suggesting the importance of thinking things through and not blindly following others. Words can be used to compliment, to hurt, or to persuade, so words should be considered very carefully.

George Orwell’s Animal Farm highlights themes that are shared by human society. Class, power and corruption, and language and propaganda are all concerns that can cause disruption and unhappiness. He points out that society is sort of built on a separation of class and an assignment of power to guide those who cannot guide themselves. He makes an interesting point for consideration that perhaps there is no society without these themes playing out, so that they are essentially a necessary evil. He is also concerned with fair treatment of all and leaves us to ponder if society can ever become fair.

Cite this page

Power and Corruption in Animal Farm. (2021, Jul 05). Retrieved from https://supremestudy.com/power-and-corruption-in-animal-farm/

"Power and Corruption in Animal Farm." supremestudy.com , 5 Jul 2021, https://supremestudy.com/power-and-corruption-in-animal-farm/

supremestudy.com. (2021). Power and Corruption in Animal Farm . [Online]. Available at: https://supremestudy.com/power-and-corruption-in-animal-farm/ [Accessed: 1 Apr. 2024]

"Power and Corruption in Animal Farm." supremestudy.com, Jul 05, 2021. Accessed April 1, 2024. https://supremestudy.com/power-and-corruption-in-animal-farm/

"Power and Corruption in Animal Farm," supremestudy.com , 05-Jul-2021. [Online]. Available: https://supremestudy.com/power-and-corruption-in-animal-farm/ . [Accessed: 1-Apr-2024]

supremestudy.com. (2021). Power and Corruption in Animal Farm . [Online]. Available at: https://supremestudy.com/power-and-corruption-in-animal-farm/ [Accessed: 1-Apr-2024]

Power and Corruption in Animal Farm. (2021, Jul 05). Retrieved April 1, 2024 , from https://supremestudy.com/power-and-corruption-in-animal-farm/

This paper was written and submitted by a fellow student

Our verified experts write your 100% original paper on any topic

Having doubts about how to write your paper correctly?

Our editors will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Leave your email and we will send a sample to you.

Please check your inbox

Sorry, copying content is not allowed on this website

Please indicate where to send you the sample.

• Essay on “Power Corrupts: Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely” for CSS and PMS

• June 2, 2023
• Essay for CSS PMS and Judiciary Exam

Introduction

Power has always been a coveted attribute individuals and institutions seek. The ability to influence, make decisions, and control others can be intoxicating. However, throughout history, it has become evident that power can corrupt individuals, leading to the abuse of authority and the erosion of morality.

The famous adage, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely,” encapsulates this inherent danger. This essay aims to critically analyze the statement, exploring its relevance in contemporary society and the implications of absolute power. By examining historical examples, psychological factors contributing to power corruption, and the importance of checks and balances, we can understand the destructive potential of unchecked authority.

Historical examples of power corruption

A. Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes:

1. Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany: Hitler’s rise to power led to the establishment totalitarian regime characterized by suppression, persecution, and genocide.

2. Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union: Stalin’s reign was marked by purges, mass executions, and the implementation of a repressive regime.

B. Absolute monarchies and their excesses:

1. Louis XIV of France: Known as the “Sun King,” Louis XIV centralized power, leading to extravagant spending, oppression of dissent, and disregard for the welfare of the people.

2. Ivan the Terrible of Russia: Ivan’s despotic rule resulted in widespread torture, executions, and political repression.

C. Totalitarian states and cults of personality:

1. Kim Jong-un and North Korea: The Kim dynasty’s control over North Korea has led to severe human rights abuses, censorship, and cult-like worship of the leader.

2. Saddam Hussein and Iraq: Hussein’s regime was marked by tyranny, persecution of minorities, and the suppression of political opposition.

Psychological factors contributing to power corruption

A. The allure of power and its effects on individuals:

1. Narcissism and ego inflation: Power can inflate an individual’s ego, leading to a sense of superiority and entitlement.

2. Sense of invincibility: With power comes a belief that one is above the law and immune to consequences.

B. Lack of accountability and the erosion of empathy:

1. Loss of perspective: The more power an individual holds, the further removed they become from the realities and concerns of the general populace.

2. Dehumanization of others: Absolute power can diminish empathy, resulting in the objectification and devaluation of those who are subjected to authority.

C. Cognitive biases and rationalizations:

1. Confirmation bias: Powerful individuals often surround themselves with sycophants who reinforce their beliefs and shield them from dissenting opinions.

2. Moral disengagement: Those in positions of power can justify unethical behavior through cognitive distortions, allowing them to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.

Importance of checks and balances

A. Separation of powers and democratic institutions:

1. Constitutional safeguards: The division of power between different branches of government ensures accountability and prevents the concentration of authority in one individual or group.

2. Electoral systems: Regular elections allow for the peaceful transfer of power and provide an opportunity for citizens to hold leaders accountable.

B. Transparency and accountability mechanisms:

1. Freedom of the press: Free and independent media plays a crucial role in exposing abuses of power, ensuring transparency, and holding leaders accountable.

2. Whistleblower protection: Encouraging individuals to come forward with evidence of corruption or wrongdoing safeguards against absolute power.

C. Public scrutiny and media’s role in exposing abuses:

1. Activism and public awareness: Engaged citizens can actively question and challenge those in power, ensuring that their actions align with public interests.

2. Investigative journalism: Journalists play a critical role in uncovering corruption and providing a platform for accountability.

Relevance of the statement in contemporary society

A. Political scandals and abuses of power:

1. Watergate scandal: The abuse of power by President Richard Nixon resulted in his resignation and a profound loss of public trust.

2. Corruption in developing nations: Many developing countries face significant challenges due to corruption among political leaders, hindering economic development and exacerbating inequality.

B. Corporate corruption and unethical practices:

1. Enron scandal: The collapse of Enron, a major energy company, revealed widespread accounting fraud and unethical practices among corporate executives.

2. The financial crisis of 2008: Irresponsible and corrupt practices within the banking sector led to a global economic meltdown, highlighting the dangers of unchecked corporate power.

C. Social dynamics and power imbalances:

1. Gender inequality: The abuse of power is often prevalent in gender-imbalanced societies, where women are subjected to discrimination, harassment, and violence.

2. Systemic racism: Institutional power imbalances can perpetuate racial discrimination and marginalization, leading to social and economic disparities.

In conclusion, the statement “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” remains relevant in contemporary society. Historical examples demonstrate how unchecked authority can lead to atrocities and human rights abuses. Psychological factors such as ego inflation, lack of accountability, and cognitive biases contribute to power corruption.

Establishing and maintaining checks and balances through separation of powers, transparency, accountability mechanisms, and public scrutiny is vital in preventing abuses of power. By recognizing the potential for corruption and actively working towards mitigating its effects, we can safeguard against the destructive consequences of absolute power and strive for a more just and equitable society.

I am interested in writing content for educational purpose.

Most relevant ▼

• Essay on “Innovations are Never-ending Headways” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Single National Curriculum Pave the Way for the Desired Ideological Integration in Pakistan Society” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Single National Curriculum Paving the Way for the desired ideological integration in Pakistan Society” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Inflation – A Result of Poor Economic Policies or a Part of Global Economic Woes” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Democracy without Justice is Tyranny” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on “Man is Born Free but Everywhere he is in Chains” for CSS, PMS
• Essay on the “Role of Social Media in the Modern World” for CSS and PMS
• Essay on “Terrorism and its Socioeconomic Implications” for CSS, and PMS

• Enter-To-Win
• Classifieds

• >>.print" target="_blank"> -->
• Subscriber Services
• Community Events
• Dogs for Adoption
• Environment
• Police Fire
• School Closings
• Transportation
• Sports Home
• Fishing Report
• High School
• A&E Home
• Music, Theater, & Dance
• Peach Weekender
• Restaurant Reviews
• Toledo Magazine
• TV & Radio
• Business Home
• Agriculture
• Development
• Personal Finance
• Real Estate
• Stock Market
• Opinion Home
• Editorial Cartoons
• Keith Burris
• Letters to the Editor
• Submit a Letter
• Health & Well-Being Home
• B Partners Home
• Ability Center
• Arrowhead Behavioral
• Balance & Mobility
• Black Diamond
• Blue Ribbon Hemp
• Bolt Express
• Boyk Law Offices
• Epworth Church
• Fair Housing Center
• Fulton Cty Health Center
• Glass City Academy
• Hammill Medical
• Holiday Gift Guide
• HOPE Toledo
• Imagination Station
• Kids of Character
• Leadership Toledo
• Levis Commons
• Lourdes University
• Lucas County Recorder
• Luther Home of Mercy
• McLaren St. Luke's
• Mighty Earth
• Ministry of Hemp
• Mission Lean
• OSU Engineering
• Oswald Companies
• Phoenix Investors
• ProMedica Medical Mgmt
• Readers' Choice Awards
• Restaurants
• Ronald McDonald House
• Solheim Cup
• Spengler Nathanson
• Toledo Clinic
• Toledo Museum of Art
• Toledo Public Library
• University of Toledo
• UT Physicians
• USA Insulation
• Zenobia Shriners
• Meals with Maddie Home
• ENTER-TO-WIN
• BLADE REWARDS
• BLADE VAULT / REPRINTS
• CLASSIFIEDS
• BLADE HOMES
• SUBSCRIBER GUIDE
• ADVERTISING
• CAREER OPPORTUNITIES

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, a conversation with u.s. ambassador to the united nations linda thomas-greenfield on u.s. diplomacy in the pacific islands, press briefing: japanese state visit and trilateral leaders’ summit, the state of governance and rule of law in uganda.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation Project
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Transnational Threats Project
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security

America is Losing the Shoe Race With China

Photo: TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP via Getty Images

Blog Post by James Andrew Lewis

Published April 1, 2024

China not only has more shoes, it is the world largest producer of shoes. How did The United States let this crucial industry, on which modern economies must stand, escape from its grasp?

A better question might be who cares.   The number of shoes is not a good indicator of national power.   In fact, no single technology is a good indicator of national power.   The U.S. economy is vast, decentralized, continental in size, and is guided by actively competitive markets. It has been exceptionally innovative for decades.   Leading in a single technology (like railroads in the 19th century or semiconductors today) reflects a common analytical error that misjudges how economies and technology actually create national power.   The concept of a “race” itself is a questionable legacy of Cold War thinking – the Cold War had a finish line (identified by Eisenhower and Dulles at the onset), while the current situation does not.

Stories about the United States falling behind are so predictable  that they form a literary genre.   In 1957, the President’s Science Advisor predicted that Soviet performance in math and science education would give it global leadership in a decade.  In 1969, the Departments of Treasury, Commerce and Agriculture warned President Nixon that a powerful new economic entity, the European Union, would displace the United States.  Starting the 1980s, assorted pundits announced that Japan would dominate the global economy. And until recently, there were routine predictions that China would displace the United States, predictions that still make regular appearances. 

These predictions have two things in common. First, they were wrong.  Second, they were wrong because they counted the wrong things.  They did not place their analyses  in the context of larger national economies. Instead, they relied on picking illustrative metrics, usually proxy indicators that provide an indirect measurement of technological success.   One recurring problem is the tendency to measure inputs rather than outcomes.   A politician may have great staff and spend more on an election, but the ultimate metric is how many votes are received.   Claims that the Unites States is falling behind China in 5G because China has deployed more base stations or has more 5G enabled phones reflects a similar confusion over metrics.   It is not the number of base stations that is important, it is the ability to use 5G to create new goods and services (or be more efficient in the use of existing goods and services) that is important, and this is best measured by the monetization of new 5G enabled services and products and their revenue. 

A report that announces that China leads in 37 technologies  out of 44 technologies does not explain why the United States is the center for development of artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and biotechnology.   China did not develop successful COVID vaccines, lags in quantum, and there are anecdotes that China’s leaders asked the author of a best-selling 2018 book on China’s coming dominance of artificial intelligence why, if that was the case, were GPT technologies developed first in the United States?  Of the 37 technologies listed, China’s alleged lead is open to question in 23.   Does China really lead in cybersecurity, as the Report asserts?   The digital economy depends on cloud computing, next generation networks (like 5G and 6G), and software (like AI products) and these are technologies where the United States has a strong if not dominant position.   

China is good at manufacturing what others have invented but no longer so good at innovation itself.   This is the result of political change. China was becoming a leading innovator when it was politically open, before 2012.   It still has advantages, but now that it is becoming politically closed, idea creation has slowed, entrepreneurs, investors and researchers are leaving, foreign investment is in decline (because of a perception of increased political risk), and geopolitics frays connections to global research and tech.   Under different political leadership, China would be a much more formidable competitor, but China made a political decision that values continued party control over innovation and its ability to innovate is at risk. 

Similarly, the EU spends significantly on R&D and has excellent research facilities, but its regulations are a powerful disincentive to entrepreneurship and commercialization.  Europe’s major economies have shown flat income growth for more than a decade.   It is not positioning itself to compete in a digital economy, since this requires a willingness to accept risk and allow entrepreneurship. Europe values privacy over innovation.

There is no easy way to directly measure innovation, so there can be a tendency to use proxies like number patent issued, amount spent on R&D, number of PhDs and publications.   It seems reasonable to assume that more R&D spending, more publications, and more patents correlate with more innovation and one of their attractions is that they are easier to count, but by themselves they do not explain strength in technological innovation.   Until the last few years, the United States lagged in investment in basic research (the foundation of innovation) and in the infrastructure to support innovation.   Yet it has over eighty years outperformed other economies when the measures are the creation of valuable new technologies and national income.   The strength of the U.S. “innovation machine” lies somewhere else. 

The discussion of technology and innovation relies on indirect proxy measurements, like the number of patents. Patents are a metric that must be used carefully.   The assertion that “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure” is particularly true for China’s centrally directed economy, where people perform to meet measures set by Beijing, leading to situation where researchers are rewarded for the number of patents issued (or number of publications) even if no one uses those patents. 

Many quantitative measures may not actually measure technological leadership as it relates to national power.   Specific metrics such as the percentage of national income spent on R&D or the number of patents issued, are inadequate by themselves to predict technological leadership. It is the ability to use technology for commercial and military purposes that is essential.   Looking at the U.S. economy, it is investment in R&D, access to skilled labor, supportive business and intellectual property laws, a dynamic financial system, and an entrepreneurial business culture that explains its overall strength compared to other economies.  

Nor does technological “leadership” guarantee military advantage.   Other factors determine military success, the most important being political will, leadership, and strategy.   An opponent that has an advantage in these areas will be able to resist and thwart a more technologically advanced opponent (the Taliban, for example).   Advanced technology in the service of flawed strategy will not change outcomes.   There is an assumption that technology provides an advantage and, in a contest, where other factors are equal, technological leadership can be critical, but in most situations this technological advantage is only one factor among many in determining effectiveness. Specific quantitative measures may not actually measure what we want to assess.   It may be better to ask what nations want (wealth, international influence, military power) to determine the contribution of a basket of technologies.

These issues are not binary – an outcome where China makes all the shoes, and the United States makes none. We would need to consider both the number of shoes produced and their quality and type, and then ask how shoes contribute to wealth, power, and military strength and whether there are alternative technologies that can substitute for them (since under duress, nations are inventive). Answering these questions requires a broader view than that taken in many reports that looks at the overall economy and its technological base. The best predictors remain overall national revenue and tech market share.

The keys to technological leadership are at the most fundamental level, access to capital and to ideas (both the ability to create new ideas and to use them). Better measures of success include market share (meaning someone actually buys what you are making), the number of startups (particularly ‘unicorns’), revenue, and the long-term trend in national income. These revolve around the central importance of the ability to commercialize research and innovation. This is an area – entrepreneurship - where the United States has had an advantage over Europe and China, both of which score well on proxy innovation metrics but less well for outcomes.   The biggest risks to the U.S. innovation system are political dysfunction and regulatory ideologues. These are domestic problems, not the result of international competition, but is easier to fault China than in the mirror.   

James Andrew Lewis

Programs & projects.

Exclusive: Behind the plot to break Nvidia's grip on AI by targeting software

NEARLY 100 STARTUPS

The Technology Roundup newsletter brings the latest news and trends straight to your inbox. Sign up here.

Reporting by Max A. Cherney in San Francisco Editing by Kenneth Li and Matthew Lewis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Rubrik plans to list its shares in a U.S. initial public offering, the cybersecurity platform said in a filing on Monday, adding to a growing wave of companies turning to capital markets after a two-year lull.

Private equity firm Advent International has agreed to buy Canada's Nuvei in an all-cash deal that values the Ryan Reynolds-backed payments technology firm at $6.3 billion.

Advertisement

Supported by

‘Renegade Nell’ Review: When the Highwayman Is a Superwoman

In a new series for Disney+, the creator of “Happy Valley” and “Last Tango in Halifax” imagines a sometimes-superpowered 18th-century justice warrior.

• Share full article

By Mike Hale

The British television writer Sally Wainwright may not be a household name in the United States, but for more than a decade she has been turning out television shows whose variety and consistently high quality few writer-producers can match.

“Scott & Bailey,” which premiered in 2011, was a smart, tart buddy-detective procedural . The blended-families drama “Last Tango in Halifax” (2012) was finely tooled, irresistible hokum , reflecting the lessons Wainwright learned during her tenure on the venerable soap opera “Coronation Street.” She raised her game with “Happy Valley” (2014), a terrific series about the intertwined work and home lives of a doggedly heroic policewoman. And she segued into costume drama with “Gentleman Jack” (2019), a fact-based Victorian saga of lesbian romance and financial maneuvering that was, like the others, well made, well acted and highly engaging.

The shows have a couple of through lines. They all take place in or near Wainwright’s home ground of Yorkshire, in northern England. And they all focus on tough, take-charge women — often women whose commitment to what they know or think is right can make them a little hard to live with.

Wainwright’s latest show, “Renegade Nell,” whose eight episodes premiered Friday on Disney+, takes her down some new paths. The action moves south, toward London (it was filmed in Oxfordshire), and further back in time, to the early 1700s. And in a significant departure, Wainwright dabbles in the supernatural: Her heroine, the commoner Nell Jackson, can summon otherworldly strength and agility to battle the black magic wielded by her higher-born foes.

Nell, played by Louisa Harland of “Derry Girls,” is another Wainwright heroine who must learn how to harness her strength and high spirits, and not do collateral damage to her family and friends. (She gets called “unnatural,” an epithet also applied to the protagonist of “Gentleman Jack” when she acts in ways women are not supposed to.) Nell’s challenge is greater, though, because the strength is so unexpected. Stumbling upon a stagecoach robbery, she is about to be shot when a tiny light appears and gives her ruffian-bashing, bullet-dodging capabilities.

The light turns out to be a winged humanoid named Billy, played by Nick Mohammed of “Ted Lasso,” who returns to bail out Nell whenever she is in danger (though not always as promptly as she would like). And she is in danger a lot: Her new powers, combined with some complicated and tragic circumstances, turn her into a fugitive suspected of multiple murders and eventually put her in the unlikely position of saving the British crown from a Jacobite invasion. (Thematically, it’s helpful for Wainwright that the actual monarch at the time, who faced an actual coup attempt, was a woman, Queen Anne, played in the show with an arch sang-froid by Jodhi May.)

It is worth mentioning here that “Renegade Nell” is a comedy, and that various traditions of British comedy figure heavily in how it looks and feels. It’s like a gender-switched “The Beggar’s Opera” (the most famous play of the show’s time period), with a male highwayman, Devereux (Frank Dillane), as the female lead’s comic foil. It borrows from the picaresque novels of the 18th century, as Nell and a ragtag band that includes her two sisters (Bo Bragason and Florence Keen), a resourceful stablehand (Ényì Okoronkwo) and Devereux bounce around the countryside getting into and out of alarming scrapes.

And hanging in the background is Shakespeare. There are references to “The Merry Wives of Windsor” and “King John,” and Billy is an Ariel-like sprite who speculates that his partnership with Nell is meant to restore balance to the world, which would be in the best traditions of Shakespearean comedy.

Billy must speculate because neither he nor Nell has any idea why they have been brought together, and the audience does not know what Billy is or where he comes from.

Perhaps we will get this information if a second season materializes; in the meantime, its lack contributes to a general fuzziness at the show’s center. Wainwright’s skill at moving the characters around and putting pithy dialogue in their mouths makes “Renegade Nell” very enjoyable from moment to moment, and most of the performers — particularly Keen, as the youngest sister, and Dillane — draw you in.

But as the season moves along, and the metaphor of magic as social and political power becomes more obvious — enabling Nell while it corrupts the aristocratic schemers ably played by Adrian Lester and Alice Kremelberg — the show doesn’t solidify its hold on your emotions. And the comedy, while reasonably deft, remains on a low boil.

Like a lot of period pieces these days, the show is amusing, intelligent and very well executed, and it shrewdly exploits its comic and magical elements to get away with audience-friendly anachronisms of language, behavior and casting. The corollary, and perhaps the consequence, is that it feels like an exceedingly clever card trick — well worth the “Ooh,” but unlikely to linger in the mind.

Mike Hale is a television critic for The Times. He also writes about online video, film and media. More about Mike Hale

Explore More in TV and Movies

Not sure what to watch next we can help..

“X-Men ’97,” a revival on Disney+ that picks up where the ’90s animated series left off, has faced questions after the firing of its showrunner  ahead of the premiere.

“3 Body Problem,” a science fiction epic from the creators of “Game of Thrones,” has arrived on Netflix. We spoke with them about their latest project .

For the past two decades, female presidential candidates on TV have been made in Hillary Clinton’s image. With “The Girls on the Bus,” that’s beginning to change .

“Freaknik,” a new Hulu documentary, delves into the rowdy ’80s and ’90s-era spring festival  that drew hundreds of thousands of Black college students to Atlanta.

If you are overwhelmed by the endless options, don’t despair — we put together the best offerings   on Netflix , Max , Disney+ , Amazon Prime  and Hulu  to make choosing your next binge a little easier.

Sign up for our Watching newsletter  to get recommendations on the best films and TV shows to stream and watch, delivered to your inbox.