Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: what actually separates power from rule, and rule from mere influence — and does calling Hitler’s January 1933 takeover a “seizure of power” get the history wrong? In Room #908 of the Deep Talk Club, the group opens our new overarching theme “Power and Violence” with a recap of an earlier, unrecorded session on power and abuse of power. From pretzels handed out before a mayoral runoff, to self-discipline as power over oneself, to the Habermas–Arendt debate on violence and democracy that curdled into the RAF, the conversation works through where power actually lives — in currency and politics, but also in families, teams, and classrooms. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A very good morning to our new overarching theme “Power and Violence.” Today and tomorrow we have the rooms for the first approach. Today with a focus on power, tomorrow with a focus on violence. Against the background that the recording didn’t run recently in the room on the topic of power and abuse of power, because I forgot to turn it on, I’d like to invite you today to also work through the aspects we picked up recently at power and abuse of power, so to speak, in a kind of summary with me, so that we have the possibility to recap what we already discussed in that room and the results, in quotation marks, we captured for ourselves, and pick that up again, so that we have that with us today too. And otherwise you’re very, very warmly invited to this new overarching theme, to simply consider with me today what the first thoughts, the first impulses are that you have when we think of the term power, so that we first collect together here. And you already know that these first approach-rooms have two functions, so to speak, or two goals. On one hand, that we first slowly enter the new overarching theme and first arrive, in quotation marks, and on the other hand, that we can also, in the background, based on what’s discussed here at this first approach, check again for the next days and weeks, all the topics that are planned, whether there might still be important aspects we haven’t considered yet, so that we can pick those up accordingly and integrate them into the process, so to speak, as standalone rooms if needed, or keywords that can then also function as memory aids under the already planned rooms and get picked up. Yes, and in that sense you’re very, very warmly invited to join today. Once more the reminder, as every morning, today too the room is recorded in the background the entire time. That means whoever joins and speaks on stage gets recorded too and automatically agrees that the whole thing will be published. We have three small room rules to join on stage. Namely, first, a profile photo in which you’re recognizable, first, last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. And whoever doesn’t want that for whatever reason, can’t speak right now, or maybe wants to stay anonymous, is warmly invited to bring in thoughts via the chat with us, so that we can pick up on one thing or another during the room accordingly too. Yes, and with that I’ll gladly mute myself first and just see who’d like to open the room with me this morning, to look toward reflection, first bring in impulses and see which direction the whole thing develops. And yes, wonderful that it’s going so quickly. That means Sabine is joining right away.
A very good morning, dear Sabine. What do you say?
Good morning, Yasemin. Since it’s already so late, we can’t wait another quarter hour. I also have to leave afterward. And that’s why, I looked at Google, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is too extensive for me. On Google it said, “Power defines the scope of the physical and psychological possibilities for action of a person or group of persons. Thus power is not something material, immediate, visible, but rather a still-invisible property of social relationships.” All sounds great, doesn’t it. Very vague. And here it sounds, when we hear power, we actually always hear something a bit negative in it. But it also occurred to me, that could of course also be through incentives, rewards or something. So I just thought of our mayoral election. It was on Sunday… how was it, Saturday evening, Sunday was the runoff election, Saturday evening the two candidates of course didn’t go around themselves, but their people went around the neighborhood again and hung pretzels or rolls with their picture on them on people’s doors. And that’s not an incentive?
Wonderful, thank you so, so much. And Jürgen has also joined, so I’d like to bring Jürgen in directly too, and then we can gladly draw connections again too.
A very good morning, dear Jürgen.
Good morning, dear Yasemin. Good morning, Sabine. Everyone in the room. I’ll follow what you introduced and recap that, at least what I noted for myself, what we discussed back then in connection with power in that room, which unfortunately wasn’t recorded. And specifically, thanks to Sabine, I was also an apologist for countering the idea that power is always negatively connoted. Power also has its positive sides. Why and how, I’ll leave open for now, it’s about collecting topics. That’s the first point. So not just nodding along to the negative side and accepting, power is something bad, but always looking for the counterpart. And that’s positive in the second case. And then I can remember, or reconstruct, an essential distinction is — I’m back at my favorite topic, terminology, which in my view is important, also in this context, not just to see the topic of violence, but also to become clear about the distinction between power and rule, and the second, or the next, third term in this context is, for me, influence. What are the differences? Are we possibly talking about synonyms, or are there quite essential differences in meaning between these three terms? I’ll repeat them again, power, rule, and influence. Thank you so much for listening.
Wonderful, thank you so much. And then I can also remember that we talked about that too. The question was brought in, where is power actually exercised? And then there were first a few keywords we picked up. It was about currency, military, politics. And then we opened the door even further and said, well, we basically have power relationships in quite different places too, so for example in the family, parent-child relationships, relationships in general, interpersonal relationships that take place, which can also be, for example, in a team, at work, with the employer and so on. That means, if we really think in detail about this term power, we have power relationships everywhere interpersonal interactions take place, and that might also have something to do with how things are shaped. Then we’d said that it’s also conferred, for example, per se through an office or something. But there might also be other constellations you could look at too. So a power relationship doesn’t necessarily have to be attributed or granted based on position, so to speak, but there’s also something like authoritative power and similar, so also regarding the person, an authority for example, that doesn’t have to be granted through an office, so to speak, but can also arise through personality aspects and so on and so forth. That comes to mind too, which we can also pick up again, and then I’d like to give you the opportunity to gladly make connections too. Before we do that, maybe also bring in Andreas now, who’s also raised his hand. And then let’s see where you’d like to connect at various points too.
Andreas, a very good morning.
A very good morning to everyone. And this is really a very exciting overarching theme. And for me, of course, what does power do comes up immediately. And I actually think that especially when it’s about people getting a certain power, having power, the question may gladly be asked, what does that do to a personality? How does that maybe even change a person? Or was I always like that, but I’m now just showing a different facet of my actions, because I’m suddenly powerful, in quotation marks, and I actually find it very exciting to play with these words too.
Wonderful. Thank you so, so much. What does power do? That’s a nice question we can formulate. Sabine, Jürgen, do you have further points you’d like to connect to here too?
Yes, I’m still thinking about what could also have influence on the first level, dear Sabine, so on the meta-level. I found that reference from you really great, that pointer, to the, I’ll say, interpersonal level, so away from what’s always more commonly used, to say state power or the power of corporations and so on, you’re absolutely right. Basically that plays out, or is, for me, the starting basis, actually this personal power, which is then realized in institutions and possibly legitimized, and then we’re at rule. But right now I’d rather think about that a bit more, whether I can contribute something more. Thank you.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. And then I’d also noted as keywords from that last room, direct and indirect, so that power can also have an effect or be exercised directly and indirectly. And then we’d also briefly touched on, well, what’s brief, you also went into that again, the three-pillar model you opened up, Jürgen, maybe you’d like to say something about that briefly again, regarding data and so on. And then we got into the fourth estate too, media. Of course there are also aspects here that we might, and the separation of powers too. Of course we have aspects there that we might also tend to pick up tomorrow too, but against the background of the thought, so to speak, of recapping the whole thing a bit, what happened in this room power and abuse of power, it might be quite nice if we pick that up again too. Then we’d talked about how that always has a function too, and what the function of power is, for example. And now I’m just curious whether you see further connection points here too, to make connections and build bridges accordingly here too. Sabine, Jürgen, Andreas.
Jürgen, gladly.
Yes, thank you, Yasemin. Thanks for the reminder. For me, it’s my personal three-pillar model of future power, as I see it, this connection of the foundation of rule over data. And I say quite deliberately, rule, not power, over data, in the hands of a few. That’s the first pillar, and the second pillar is those who make information out of this data. That’s the fourth estate. That’s the mediocracy, meanwhile, following Welser. And this second pillar, and the first, finds its complement in the redesign and in the new form of the still-existing financial system, which keeps the further existence of these two pillars alive as a lubricant. That is, I always say quite deliberately, my personal model, my future vision, that we simply infer from the development currently taking place, or that I infer. But another point occurred to me during your remarks. Specifically, when you said function and forms of power, the connection to learning especially. Namely, the “power” of the teacher over the learner through the use of reinforcement techniques, especially through praise and reprimand, then I think you can very easily make a connection regarding a term you also brought up, namely authority. The authority of the teacher over a student, through the use of the means, the reinforcement means praise and reprimand. I’ll put that up for discussion, whether that should also be seen in this context. Thank you so much for listening.
Thank you so, so much. Sabine, Andreas, would you maybe like to connect here again too?
Yes, isn’t that basically power through reward, power through coercion? What you just said with school, the children can identify and say, okay, I see this as a reward, or the big thumb comes down from above and there’s no other way. What just occurred to me too, power over yourself, self-discipline is also a form of power, because the child who wants to learn in school now, they actually already have to have themselves under control and say, I want to. So that’s already a power over yourself too. And I think that’s maybe secondary, when you actually hear power, you always think about power quite differently. So if we now think about Ukraine, war, the powerful, often somewhere an autocrat, in that direction. But actually, if I think about it now, it’s also very positive, because if I don’t want to work on myself, I don’t get ahead either.
Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much. With the aspect of praise and reprimand, we’re basically actually talking about reward, and sanction would then be the flip side, so to speak. That means we’re talking about the motivation system. Then we’re back at this moving-away-from, moving-toward and so on. So a moving-away-from movement would here be away from the sanction, and setting a reward in the form of praise for example. That’s the incentive that’s here. That would be a moving-toward movement. And I find the aspect you opened up with self-discipline quite interesting too. And there we also have this aspect of power games possibly too. And especially when we look at it from this perspective of the term, so if we also play with the term, like Andreas said, and power games, the word games is already in there too, then it becomes relatively quickly clear to us that we actually have power constructions everywhere in everyday life, that aren’t necessarily always set and steered from outside. So that means we have a differentiation here too. So that means we’re back at this assignment or allocation via office, for example, because it has a quite specific function. Or in this interpersonal realm, where power, power relationships, are present. Wherever power relationships are present, power games also automatically take place. There we can also remember one of the rooms again, where we also talked about Eric Berne, which is also about these power games. And then I also find it nice, this aspect you opened up, Sabine, regarding yourself, because we also have that for example with leadership, self-leadership. And here we’re at, so to speak, power, you just used the term self-discipline, for example, so also a self-power or self-empowerment, we could maybe also bring in as a term here too.
And Jürgen had raised his hand. So I’d like to let you connect here again too, dear Jürgen.
Yes, I’d like to jump in, in quotation marks, terminology-wise, on the term discipline. And that closes the circle, on one hand, for the necessity to differentiate between power and discipline. That’s not something I came up with myself. But discipline is the necessary prerequisite and the basis for rule, but not for power. This is certainly not a simple topic, or it might even warrant its own room. But the discipline, or your interjection, dear Sabine, regarding discipline, leads me to the second point we haven’t talked about at all yet, namely, let’s reach an agreement on what we understand by power. Simply, what is power?
Thank you. Yes, thank you so, so much. Sabine, would you like to address that? What is power for you?
We actually come back to the definition from earlier, don’t we, unless it’s completely off.
Yes, gladly repeat it again, and I can then also gladly pick up the definition from Wikipedia I brought in at power and abuse of power too, we can compare that again too, and really compare it again, is that also what I understand by it? That could certainly differ from what’s in an official definition, what we find online too. I have another definition too, maybe let’s take that one too. When you talk about power, you don’t mean some thing, but a web of relationships between two or more persons, groups, or similar. Power is therefore possessed by anyone who has the opportunity to enforce a will or interest within a social relationship.
Yes, wonderful. I still had from Wikipedia last time, I’ll just bring that in too. There, power designates the ability of a person or group to influence the thinking and behavior of individual persons, social groups, or parts of the population in such a way that they subordinate themselves to their views or wishes and behave accordingly. So here too we have this aspect of behavior very, very strongly pronounced too. The question is, is that what we understand by it too, or does that differ? So would we go along with these definitions here, or what fits for us, or maybe not? That would be quite interesting again.
Sabine.
Yes, I mean, I don’t think we understand it that way in day-to-day business. But that’s how it is. I’m the team captain in our tennis team, and in the end I have to make a decision. So I’m exercising my power. But I’d never see it in that context, if you don’t think about it. And I think it’s like that in every — I mean, if I tell my son, you do this and that, that’s also a form of power. Of course I’d rather convince him than say, you have to do this and that. But in the end we certainly wouldn’t call it, in day-to-day business, that I have power over my son. But isn’t it that way, if I let the definition pass by me again now?
Thank you, Jürgen, you also wanted to connect again.
I personally miss a component to concretize what makes up power, namely, that this power is directed against another person’s will. I actually don’t want what’s happening to me. So this primary goal of exercising power, and there we come to the distinction of discipline, breaking the will, we often say, the will of resistance is broken. And that’s also a second term that was heavily discussed from the political past, from the 60s and 70s, and finds itself today, whether you have a right to exercise a certain form of resistance, and also using violence against power, see our climate activists or other radical groups, to exercise a counter-power. So essentially, though, for me…
…there’s a really clear component here, how should I put it, to avoid violence, this influence against my will. That’s, for me, a really essential aspect of this definition of power.
Thank you so, so much. The question that arises for me now in this context, and this goes in the direction Sabine brought in, ultimately, is it partly about influencing the thinking and acting, behavior of others, when we talk about power? And this influence, and especially this term influence, we’d, if you remember, also picked up and discussed in that context, when it was about the term manipulation. And there too we’d discussed whether basically every form, so to speak, of influence isn’t ultimately also manipulation per se. And there were different views on that, but from the origin of the word, if we say manipulation is basically ultimately a form of influence, and it doesn’t necessarily always have to be negatively connoted, even if societally it often sets the impulse first, because we’re simply shaped to think manipulation is something negative. But every form of influence has something to do with me influencing the other person in some form, so to speak. And now the question is, maybe that’s also the distinction, does the other person agree to that, in quotation marks, or not?
Jürgen.
Clear position, no. I define the differences between influence and power differently. Power concretizes the existing relationship between two persons, or between groups, opposing positions. While influence, for me, represents the instruments, the people who bring about this power, who obtain this power. And we don’t say “exert influence” and “have influence” for nothing. So something happens in between. And this happening in between, to gain power and to constitute the power, that’s, for me, the means of exercising power, either via psychological pressure, via violence, or however. And that’s why, to briefly summarize again, for me power is the status of a relationship, and influence is the way in which I come to this influence. Mind you, my personal opinion. Thanks.
I find that a nice differentiation. You could then also say, so instrument, or for example too, if I use methods or techniques, then that would be, so to speak, here, you could also see that as an instrument to achieve the status power, so to speak. For example, Sabine, do you have further thoughts on this too?
Yes, on the instruments. Really interesting, because I mean actually we all talk about how we feel more comfortable when we see everything positively. So wouldn’t it also make sense for every ruler to work through reward and not through punishment and sanctions? Maybe you can even achieve the same thing with that. What I also wanted to say, we often stand there discussing and discussing and discussing. And the question is then, do we sometimes reach the goal if someone doesn’t exercise their power and make the decision, so that we move forward?
Nice question, and here maybe also, the ball is played toward Jürgen too. Maybe you’d like to give an impulse again on the topic of rule and power and differentiation of the terminology too, Jürgen.
I embrace you, dear Yasemin. I think, don’t be mad at me, I’m really quite persistent in making this distinction between these two forms, and I’ll try to illustrate it with a rather infamous example from our recent history. One of, in my view, the biggest conceptual mistakes many people make is this label of the so-called “seizure of power” by Adolf Hitler. That wasn’t a seizure of power at the end of January, because the takeover of rule, in that case by Adolf Hitler, was legitimized by an election to the Reichstag. The actual seizure of power took place shortly afterward, after the Reichstag fire, through the Reichstag Fire legislation, which enabled the Nazis to suspend all existing fundamental rights based on an emergency decree. Meaning, rule is always legitimized. Rule is always legitimized either through elections, or agreement, or the transfer of one’s will to another. The ruler rules… And that’s, for me, the really essential difference to power, in that a ruler, an autocrat, a dictator, in quotation marks, rules, but by means of violence, physical or psychological. And at that moment the term rule turns, for me, into power, into a power relationship, because he especially acts contrary to my will. That’s why I think, because this distinction has really essential consequences for me, and let me make another loop to your term, namely, dear Sabine, discipline. Rule is then based on, and we can all point the finger at ourselves here, if we voted, and our party doesn’t govern in a future coalition, having this discipline and being able to bear that this rule now rules. If, however, the whole thing happens without an election and without agreement and without legitimization, then I undermine, must undermine in my view, the discipline, and I even have the obligation to turn against this power. Thank you so much for listening.
Yes, I find that really exciting, with the legitimation. Let me ask a follow-up question here, to also play with the thoughts again. Sounds very plausible, if we look at it a bit in the area of democracy, where you have the feeling, there we also have the possibility, in quotation marks, to undermine that again too, for example through elections etc. How does that look in other forms of governance, like dictatorship for example, or similar, where people, for example, are born into a state form. Somehow, viewed historically, some form of legitimation has occurred in some way, in quotation marks, but I might not have any possibility at all, either to undermine anything here, to go into resistance, or, for example, to leave the country. Can we still hold onto this thought here too? I’d like to check that with you all together. Jürgen, would you like to start here?
Yes, I notice I didn’t express myself clearly enough. Dear Yasemin, for your example, my point was actually to say, there I even have the duty to do justice to my will and stand against this power. And now to make the loop to the terminology, also regarding the specification power, that would be, for me, the positive side of power, I mean the constructive power, namely, because a negative power exists that acts against me, that coerces me, that oppresses me, any exercise of power to eliminate this power is, for me, an expression of a positive power. Sorry, that might have sounded a bit confused now, but I hope that, or rather I fully confirm. Yes, in that sense, in the situation you sketched, I’m actually, from my own person, my self-image, my educational mandate, if you will, regarding self-determination, obligated to apply a constructive power. Keyword, remember.
Then I’d like to open up another point too, because that’s maybe also a field of tension we’re in, or also a form of balancing, so to speak, a balancing act. You said earlier, if that’s legitimized, and, for example, a decision has been made in the form of elections or something, I basically also have to bear that to some extent, to a certain degree. Now the question of course arises, what does bearing it to a certain degree mean, or from what point does it really go into a justified resistance, so also exercising power, maybe wanting to undermine certain things again, I’ll call it that. Because not every legitimized power, rule, might then also be implemented the way it was desired, or the way, we could open up the example with German politics at this point. The electorate votes for something they stand for, and what’s then actually implemented is something different. So from what point is it, so to speak, in quotation marks, justified to proceed against it, in what form to proceed against it. So many new doors open up here again that we can discuss. And I’m curious what you say about that.
Yes, Jürgen, gladly.
I’ll gladly pick that up, especially with a reference to politics, but I’ll go back 50, 60 years to my Sturm und Drang period. Exactly this topic, the dimension of applying violence as a means to change an existing democratic system, was one of the main points of contention in the ’68 generation, and was, and ran, especially in a discourse between Habermas — that might mean something to one person or another — and, for me, the great philosopher who’s still alive today, and Hannah Arendt. And both were, in their early period, convinced that using violence, in whatever form of pressure, against a democratic system, since it’s legitimized and doesn’t represent power, but a rule of the sovereign, of the people, is not permissible. And now comes the crux of the matter for me, namely the dimensioning of how this rule is perverted, all the way to the development of a power relationship, in which the representative of the sovereign, a legislature and an executive, increasingly rise up to use instruments to enforce their own original intentions, which we also already defined as the essence of power, right at the beginning, Sabine. This happened, and this perversion took place back then. Many people in this room, due to their age, don’t know this anymore, keyword RAF. And in the course of this development, both personalities, Arendt and Habermas, changed their positions again and made a clear departure from a gradual leaning, yes, something has to change, and I might have to let violence take effect, act, back to the view, violence is not a means to power. And I think that’s a point, dear Yasemin, that can be excellently discussed, and, hopefully constructively, discussed. But I think everyone really has to form their own personal opinion. To what extent — it comes down to saying, to what extent our existing parliamentary system, our democracy, keeps a development free of violence, even though the representative of the sovereign basically increasingly acts in this direction of an exercise of power. A, I think, very exciting but very tricky topic. Thank you.
Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much. Let me pick up one or two points from the chat too, and see, even if it doesn’t seem immediately and directly fitting right now, that we also have the possibility to connect again here at one point or another, if you want. First we have here, if power should be negative, then powerlessness should be positive. Power is more the active position, was a remark we have. Then we have, we need to be friendlier and more patient, instead of striving for power for power’s sake. Too much power corrupts, is another comment. Then here connecting again to what was said with the term self-power. Then we have here, when I think of power, endurance comes to mind. That was another impulse that was set. Then the question, who actually has real power? To what extent can we speak of power when we as humans don’t even know if we’ll still be alive tomorrow? Here a statement from Jesus, so also in this religious direction again, Matthew 28, shortly before he went back to his Father. “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Then we have another comment, “When I think of power, I think of delays at the immigration office.” Sorry, one moment. And then we have the reference to Marshall Rosenberg too. Power with someone versus power over someone. For Rosenberg, rewards are also violent communication. So here we’re maybe also on the level of communication and language too. We’ll also look at that, by the way, over the next days and weeks too. Exactly. Then we also had the reference to rewards here. And then we have… I can’t classify the other one a hundred percent. Okay, so, well, we’ve now just picked up the comments or questions with questions too. So those were partly rhetorical questions from my point of view too, at least picked up. Would you maybe like to make a connection at one point or another again? Does that raise another point we want to briefly address here, before we then look at gradually wrapping up this room together for today too? Sabine, Jürgen, is there a point you’d like to connect to again?
Sabine, gladly.
Yes, it was all heavy fare already. I’d have to sign off soon anyway. But I wanted to say once more, I still think, when we talk about power, we don’t necessarily think about the positive side. That also became apparent again with many remarks in the chat. Thank you especially to you too, Jürgen. I’ll think more about all of it. I wish you a nice day.
Yes, wonderful. Thank you so, so much. Yes, the positive connotation, so to speak, that means, when we think of power, the impulse is often that we often think of something negative, maybe also think of abuse of power in this context, whereas power per se isn’t something negative first, in quotation marks, but rather power is often also needed in everyday life and has its function at this point too. And so also looking at it with this lens too, that’ll be exciting too, I think.
Jürgen, do you have further points you’d like to connect to, or would you also gladly give your closing word for today?
Thank you very much, dear Sabine, for your contributions, and as always for your dazzling moderation, Yasemin, and for this topic. For the closing word I’d maybe like to point out one thing after all, after the search for the really big meta-level. Like many of the rooms taking place here, I especially see this room too in the context of our topic that keeps coming up, future skills and mega-learning. Because through the constructive dialogues and the exchange of opinions, all the way to this conscious ability to bear things, those are, in my view, techniques, mega-learning, that hopefully make all of us a bit fitter every day for the future skills we’ll need in the future. That’s why, once again, heartfelt thanks for this topic, and I’m looking forward to the further development of this really exciting topic. Thank you, dear ones, and a nice day.
Yes wonderful, thank you so, so much to both of you, and also for the thoughts, suggestions, comments in the chat. Quite a lot came together again. Above all I found it nice that we actually also tried to recap what happened in that room, power and abuse of power, that we picked that up again here too, continued it. And to now open up tomorrow, so to speak, this second part, namely the first approach with the focus on violence. And I’m really curious too, which aspects will come together there. And then we’ll have the possibility to check one thing or another again in the room planning, room design, so to speak, of the topics we’ve planned for the next weeks, in order to then directly start with the first topics right away too. I won’t mention now what’s coming on Wednesday, because that could be adjusted accordingly, and so changes are reserved. I wish you a wonderful day today, and I’m really curious, and you’re warmly invited tomorrow to also look together at this overarching theme with the focus on violence, and shape the first approach together too. And whoever has the time and inclination can already think a bit about it today, and then bring that in tomorrow accordingly too. In that sense, I wish you well. Until then.
