Rovers Bay

I’d like to do one more blog about law number eleven from Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power. It states, “learn to keep people dependent on you,” and is achieved by limiting the information you put out. In Greene’s words, “never teach them enough so that they can do without you.” Law number eleven overlaps law three, “conceal your intentions;” law four, “always say less than necessary;” and law eight, “make other people come to you.”

These all imply the strategy of keeping people dependent on you by limiting your output. It is a particularly difficult strategy for emotional, expressive people, because those folks enjoy distributing information about themselves more than anything else in life. It makes them feel sane to express themselves. These laws are stating that self-expression is a sure road to ruin. They also explain the traditional male-dominance in terms of social, business, and other forms of power.

Whether it be caused by nature or nurture, women are frequently more expressive, more emotional, more open than men. All of these qualities go against the laws of power. But these laws were not made up by the author himself, so we can’t complain that they are sexist or prejudiced. They are not made up in order to disempower certain people; they have simply been observed over the centuries and catalogued in this book. So it all begs the question: are friendly people doomed to failure? Must the world be run by evasive, cagey, manipulative people? Is there no virtue in honesty and sincerity?

I think the answer is about defining success. If success for you is to live a life of honesty and sincerity—which is a perfectly legitimate goal and one espoused by religions worldwide—then the power you are going to wield is a spiritual one. Will you be the most successful business person? Probably not. Will you be happy? Probably, unless you become so broke that you can’t keep a roof over your head.

This, I think, is the dilemma that most people around the world face daily: where do you draw the line between the practical need to feed your family and the spiritual need to live honestly? Some folks take it to one extreme, believing that as long as they follow their beliefs God will provide them with all they need. Others take it to the other extreme, believing that they were put on this earth to succeed and nothing else matters. But most people fall somewhere in-between and face these inner battles every day, in terms of whether it is right or wrong to act in a self-serving manner when there is a “greater good.”

Here’s my answer, for whatever its worth: It depends on if it’s real life or a game. Business, for instance, is a game. People try to buy low and sell high, no matter what the product. They try to pay employees low wages and charge clients a lot for services in order to make a profit. Exploitation is the name of the game. When you take a job you don’t expect to make the same pay as your boss. How would the business survive that way? You know it’s a game, you know the rules of the game, and you elect to play it. In that case, I say the gloves are off. Do what it takes to win the game. But then, if we are not talking about business, but about real interpersonal connections between people, and you apply the same self-serving tactics as you do in business, then you are treading on very thin ice. This is where compassion and honesty should come into play, not the laws of power. The trouble begins when “the game” overlaps with “real life:” when uneducated people are exploited for profits, when forests are cut down for factories, when people are enslaved. And, ultimately, every business at some point crosses the boundaries of “game” and merges with “life.”

If your work exists in those boundary regions, then good luck, because it is all a matter of your own conscience. But if you are lucky enough to work in a situation that is pure “game,” then I say . . . let the games begin.