What's your relationship to power?
And what do you want it to be?
Marriage taught me everything I ever needed to know about democracy. Not because my marriage worked out, actually, but because of why it didn’t.
Common wisdom states that the two most frequent arguments in marriage center on sex or money. I would guess division of labor is number three, based on my own experience. Here’s the thing, though. Disagreements about sex, money, and division of labor are all fundamentally conflicts about power— who gets to exercise it, when, and how.
My ex-husband and I argued about sex, money, division of labor, whose dreams got priority, and on and on. At a certain point, though, I realized that our trouble wasn’t any of those things. It was that we had fundamentally different relationships to power.
He only truly understood power as hierarchy— someone on the top and someone on the bottom. Any struggle between us was about figuring out who got to be where on the ladder, and by god, he was not going to be the one on the bottom.
My relationship to power is more complex and flexible. I can lead, follow, and collaborate, depending on the circumstance. Because what role I play in any given situation isn’t my identity. It doesn’t say anything essential about me at all.
When we would be in the midst of a disagreement and I would be arguing for us to collaborate on something, to share power in other words, his response would inevitably be along the lines of “you’re trying to dominate me!” I knew I wasn’t trying to do that, so then I’d defend myself and we’d just go around and around.
It took the distance of separation for me to finally understand that he wasn’t trying to willfully distract me from getting what I was asking for, nor was he consciously trying to manipulate me. He just had such a singular understanding of the nature of power that it was like we were speaking a different language. I was saying “share” and “collaborate” and he was hearing “I won’t be on the top, which means you want me on the bottom.”
There were plenty of things that killed our relationship in the end, but looking back now I think this dissonance in our understanding of how power can work was the deal-killer.
American democracy is fundamentally a system for dispersing, or sharing, power, having historically been constructed as a rebellion against the hierarchical power of kings. For those folks like Donald Trump and his supporters who only understand power as hierarchy, the system chafes and threatens because it requires submitting to sharing power. They don’t understand submission in the absence of dominance. They don’t speak that language.
We say words like coalition or compromise or collaborate, all of which require the willingness to share power, to disentangle our momentary position in relationship to power from our essential identity, and all they hear is “you want to dominate me!” Because if we don’t allow them to be at the top, then we must want them at the bottom.
Can they learn to have a more complex, flexible relationship to power? I’m hopeful the answer is yes, but not if the person in charge is telling them they shouldn’t have to.
Author Toni Morrison once observed that racism isn’t based on any truth about the inherent nature of people. Instead, it is an arbitrary system for determining access to resources. And what is access to resources, but power? Think about that the next time you hear a political conservative reflexively refer to any social safety net program that distributes resources to people of color or immigrants as “socialism.” What they’re really saying is “I don’t want to share power.” I would argue that is fundamentally un-American.
The reason I voted for Kamala Harris (Yay for early voting!) isn’t because I agree with her consistently on policy. I voted for her because I believe we speak the same language around power. She knows that there is a time and place to lead, to follow, and to collaborate. She understands that sharing power is at the heart of American democracy. And she understands that as actual, fallible human beings we haven’t always lived up to that ideal. But she believes we can, and so do I.
For those of you following along since last week’s newsletter, Mom and I didn’t get our offer accepted on the cabin. I’ll forego the details because they’re unnecessary and boring. But I will tell you that despite the momentary disappointment we both felt at the outcome, our collaborative process together was incredibly positive. In the midst of all the frustrations and complications, from beginning to end we communicated clearly and well. We distributed tasks evenly, acknowledging each other’s strengths and capacities. We managed our strong emotions and treated each other with tremendous kindness.
I can testify, having gone through this process with her, that you can be deeply emotionally invested in something and also not attached to outcomes. You can work through frustration and confusion and still be loving and kind. You can pursue short-term goals with determination while also maintaining a wider, more philosophical view. You can be with what is and still remain hopeful.
My marriage didn’t teach me any of that, but the enduring love between my mama and me in the face of so many obstacles over the years absolutely has. And, honestly, going through this process now, with her, makes me believe even more deeply in this democratic project here in the U.S. as well. Is democracy emotionally complicated and often difficult? Yes. Does it require us to extend ourselves beyond our basest, most primal instincts, release attachment to short-term outcomes, but still maintain our determination, our long-term vision, and our hope? Yes.
If we continue to reach towards the ideals of sharing power that are fundamental to this project, maybe even improving upon them over time, is all that effort worth it?
Yes, yes, YES.
If you haven’t yet and are in the U.S., please vote, my friends. Vote as if the fate of democracy depends on it. Because it does.
See you on the far side.
XO,
Asha
Thanks so much for this - yes to your insight. Years of trying to share responsibilities with my husband as our plates got more and more full with jobs, children, houses, land, elder care, etc. consistently found us in the same place. Me cast as the bossy know it all who just wants to be obeyed, and him as the willing but incapable "helper" who was prevented from doing his share by my unwillingness to explain every single detail of the work required and coach him through learning it. I truly think men (at least in my cohort - mid60s now, usually grew up with mothers primarily at home) believe that women have been educated in this way so that we "know" how to do things. Whereas, at least in my experience, most women simply assume we will have to rise to the occasion or task and learn as we go. Again, based on the assumed power dynamic - for us the work is obligatory, for them it is a gracious gesture..
So well said! ❤️