The history of mankind is filled with examples of hierarchical power being used in positive, responsible, and constructive ways for the common good in all walks of life. However, it is also true that some power holders can, in specific circumstances, demonstrate abusive, egocentric, and binary behavior that is contrary to the general interest of others and societies at large. After all, a quick glance at classic literature or popular culture will remind us that powerful people are sometimes portrayed as alluring and dominant. Bertrand Russell famously warned of ‘the intoxication of power’, maintaining that it led ‘towards a certain kind of madness’ that was ‘the greatest danger of our time.’ English historian John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, better known as Lord Acton, also described the detrimental effects of power on those who wield it. He argued that ‘power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’

In this article, I set out to explore whether the characterization of power by Russell and Lord Acton as intoxicating and corruptive is potentially justified. Combining insights from philosophy with neuroscience, among other disciplines, I analyze the relationship between individuals, groups, and power. The latter refers to all forms of hierarchical power structures within public, professional, or private life, including politics, academia, sports, entertainment, and society more broadly. In the past, careful observers of human nature and social phenomena were forced to base their theories on observation and introspection. Today, theoretical claims can be tested with the help of modern technology and enriched by new insights from empirical studies. The interplay of philosophy, neuroimaging, and (neuro)science can be exceedingly productive: by using empirical methods to approach philosophical questions, we can test some philosophical claims and gain additional data on which we might then reflect. Philosophy, in turn, can contribute to the overall project of knowledge by clarifying concepts, meaning and articulating new questions that require examination. 

With this in mind, I make the case that in any hierarchical form, power can, in some circumstances, be (i) addictive, (ii) corruptive, and, possibly, (iii) destructive. However, power can also be a force for good if it is augmented by consensus, accountability, and diverse and competent advisory circles to limit the negative excesses associated with it. The latter can happen intentionally or due to uninformed, short-sighted or temporal calculations and pressures. Finally, I demonstrate how transdisciplinary approaches—in this case, the intersection of philosophy, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, social psychology, and political science—can provide a holistic understanding of power, in doing so, unpacking important questions about human nature, governance, and society.

The neuroscience of motivation and the temptation of power

Claims regarding the potentially intoxicating effect of power acknowledge similarities in the influence that power and some addictive substances have on us. This similarity emerges from neurochemical mechanisms in the brain that shape and control our feelings, thoughts, motivations, and behavior. Shaped by a lengthy evolutionary process, our brains can be described as being wired or ‘pre-programmed’ for survival and reproduction. It is unsurprising, then, that fitness-increasing stimuli (also called rewards) include food and sex. To obtain these rewards, an organism must be motivated to seek them; it often does so because the experience of these rewards elicits positive emotions underpinned by neurochemical changes. The organism must thus be able to associate the stimuli with rewarding experiences, which then nudges the organism to repeat the behavior in question. 

The neural structures underlying the functions of wanting, liking, and learning are known as the Mesolimbic Reward System. Drawing on the difference between wanting and liking, distinguished psychologists and neuroscientists such as Kent C. Berridge and Terry E. Robinson have helped us better understand the neurochemical mechanisms underlying motivation and craving practices. Wanting can be defined as the positive feeling that accompanies the expectation of a reward; this feeling creates anticipatory pleasure, which generates an impulse to obtain the reward. The large, robust neural systems responsible for this experience are linked to the projection of mesolimbic dopamine and other neurochemicals throughout the forebrain. In turn, liking, captures the positive feeling that accompanies the presence of a given reward to create consummatory pleasure, which originates in various hedonic hotspots within the limbic system. These hotspots are stimulated by neurotransmitters such as endogenous opioids, endocannabinoids, and other neurochemicals like serotonin, oxytocin, and testosterone, which are chemical messengers produced naturally by the body. 

Drugs such as cocaine affect the structures of the reward system to amplify liking to an extreme. Once cocaine crosses the blood-brain barrier, an accumulation of dopamine causes the resultant high. An excess of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens (an area of the brain associated with action and motivation) appears to produce an experience of euphoria that is far more acute than the pleasures achieved by sober activities. This experience is apparently so difficult to resist that, when given the choice, some animals will choose cocaine over food and starve. Assuming that the relationship between addiction and the neurochemical mechanism underlying motivation is generalizable, any stimulus that hijacks the reward system to produce a spike in dopamine and other neurochemicals can be addictive. In its most extreme form, such an addiction—or extreme craving—might convert into pure drive—an overwhelming craving that demands satisfaction despite the absence of a pleasurable experience. 

The Craving for Power

I have referred to addictive stimuli in the context of the ‘sustainable neurochemical gratification principle.’ This principle combines insights about the functioning of the reward system with the conditioned stimuli that have a recognizable cognitive content. Ultimately, these stimuli promote feelings of gratification or satisfaction that involve a stronger cognitive component than the instinctual pleasure associated with alimentary, reproductive, or parasitic rewards. I have identified five motives—which I have termed the Neuro P5—as particularly powerful in eliciting neurochemical gratification: power, profit, pleasure (as physical and aesthetic), pride, and permanency (understood as longevity and legacy). Based on my research, I consider power to be the strongest (and possible primary progenitor) of the five drivers. Addiction is characterized by the fact that a reward is not simply liked and wanted by the addict; it also produces a kind of short-term high and leads to cravings over the longer term. Some have argued that these elements can also be applied to power, which creates an addictive high, much like cocaine or other drugs.  Similarly, it can be argued that the more power some people have, the more they will seek to increase it. In certain circumstances, hierarchical power can, therefore, be intoxicating, addictive, and almost impossible to resist, with potentially positive or negative consequences. 

Power and character

Another concept crucial to the analysis of the negative effects of power is corruption. While analyses of institutional corruption dominate contemporary research, we should also note how corruption manifests in particular individuals (with certain predispositions and conducive circumstances) through exercising power over others. For Lord Acton, corruptness refers to the moral badness of a power holder; he associates corrupting power with immorality in his conclusion that ‘great men are almost always bad men’, which may be generally true but not always. Mark Philp characterizes the essential meaning of corruption as ‘rooted in the sense of a thing being changed from its naturally sound condition, into something unsound, impure, debased, infected, tainted, adulterated, depraved, perverted.’ Here, power is alleged to spoil or render a person’s moral character unsound. Some studies show power as having either a neutral or positive effect on how we feel, think, and behave. Higher levels of power are associated with enhanced cognitive abilities, energy, focus, and greater self-confidence. For instance, experiment subjects occupying relatively powerful positions can better perform executive functions and distinguish between relevant and irrelevant goals more successfully. In situations involving the potential for action, they are more likely to act than their lower-power counterparts and less likely to be influenced by others.

Through such effects, power holders can gain advantages over their competitors. The successes that come from the advantages of power also tend, in some circumstances, to increase aggression, as power holders are motivated to seek out new opportunities to prove themselves and improve their chances of winning the next contest. The aggressive behavior that emerges with confrontation can be explained by the release of the hormone testosterone. Testosterone is again released with the experience of success in conflict, in turn elevating dopamine levels. Rapid increases in neurochemicals like dopamine levels then motivate an organism to repeat a behavior that has been perceived as rewarding. This neurochemical process is known as the ‘Winner Effect.’ As Robertson explains, ‘power opens doors in our brain that help us gain more power‘ and empowers us to be winners through a positive feedback loop. A similar pattern—a rise in testosterone before a contest, a notable surge of testosterone in winners (but not losers) after the contest, and higher testosterone levels before the next contest—has been observed in tennis players and chess players during tournaments. In a study of London stock traders, researchers could predict individual profit or loss for a given day based on the traders’ testosterone levels in the morning. Experiments on mice show that the increased expression of androgen receptors results in more antagonistic behavior and greater motivation to fight and that these changes to the brain phenotype are potentially long-lasting. It is thus safe to speculate that the neurochemical reaction to winning is not unlike the neurochemical reaction to successfully produce an intended effect by asserting one’s will over that of someone else. If this is the case, the experience of power over others is likely to be accompanied by a similar self-perpetuating cycle of testosterone and dopamine, further empowering the power holder.

Me, myself, and I

Studies have also shown that higher levels of power can sometimes be associated with tendencies towards overconfidence and self-centeredness. In one experiment, participants were asked to predict the outcome of a dice roll and given the choice to either roll the dice themselves or let someone else do so. All participants in a high-power position chose to roll the dice themselves, compared with only a little over half of participants in low-power positions. The researchers suggest that this preference on the part of the powerful reveals an illusory sense of control or a belief in one’s ability to control an outcome that is, in fact, beyond one’s reach. High-power individuals also appear to find more inspiration in themselves than in others. 

There is a tendency among those in power to objectify others, judging them by means of their instrumental usefulness. The neuroscientific process of mirroring shows us how power can impair one’s ability to empathize with others. In an experimental setting, mirroring occurs when A’s observation of B’s performance of an action elicits a motor resonant response in A. That is, the act of watching B perform an action stimulates networks in A’s brain similar to the ones that are activated when A performs the same action. Experiments show a negative correlation between mirroring and power ‘whereby increasing levels of power are associated with decreasing amounts of resonance.’ It has been shown that power holders may, in some situations, be genuinely incapable of mentally putting themselves in someone else’s position even when actively trying to do so; this is then yet another factor that sets more powerful people apart from others. With the finding that the effects of power could change the brain in the long term, it is plausible to assume that occupying a position of (high) power has far-reaching implications for our capacities for social understanding.

Arguing against Machiavelli, whose 1532 manual on how to secure power relied heavily on manipulation, deception, and coercion, psychologist Dacher Keltner points to understanding and responding to people’s needs and interests as the most promising way to acquire and exercise power. In light of research illustrating the destructive impact of power on social intelligence, Keltner introduces a ‘paradox of power’ in which “the skills most important to obtaining power and leading effectively are the very skills that deteriorate once we have power.” Keltner concludes that the impulsive and insensitive behavior of some powerful people in some circumstances can be compared to that of patients with damage to their orbitofrontal cortex (the part of the brain associated with decision-making). 

Does power corrupt?

At this point, we can return to the question set aside earlier and ask what these empirical insights tell us about Lord Acton’s dictum that power corrupts: does power truly taint a person’s moral character? If we define character as an individual’s somewhat stable predisposition to think, feel, and behave in a particularly ethical way, then the claim is likely to be true in specific circumstances if power changes the individual powerholder’s (i) thoughts, feelings, and actions (ii) in the long term and (iii) for the worse, morally. The studies referenced above indicate that these conditions are met in the following ways.

First, they show that the occupation of a high-power rather than a low-power position (or even the feeling that one is so positioned) is associated with improved cognitive performance, increased self-centredness, and greater confidence to the point of overconfidence and hubris. Through these effects on our intellect, our interaction with others, and our self-perception, power undoubtedly influences our predisposition to think, feel, and act. Second, the ‘Winner Effect’ demonstrates that the experience of winning can be self-perpetuating by increasing one’s future chances of winning, potentially leading to a sustained upward spiral of power. Finally, fulfillment of the third condition depends on one’s unique framework of pre-existing ethical behavior or accountable institutional structures. But given that in most circumstances, the personal acquisition of power (1) prompts a shift from an other to a self-serving attitude, (2) limits the ability to adopt other perspectives and empathize, and (3) is associated with increasingly unethical behavior, it seems plausible that some powerful individuals are less willing or able to strive for a moral good—whether that striving consists of adhering to universal rules, securing the greatest happiness, or practicing virtue. I therefore conclude that, yes, in most circumstances, with pre-existing predispositions, personal power over others is likely to corrupt some powerholders.

Still, it does not follow that power necessarily corrupts, and there are two caveats to its corruptive force. The first is that corruption depends on the extent and duration of personal power. Anticipating this, Lord Acton followed his assertion that power tends to corrupt with ‘and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ As already noted, everyone has power over something or someone at some point or in some way. However, not everyone is morally corrupt, and not everyone suffers from hubris after wielding such power. This suggests that power must exceed a certain level, and have corresponding pre-existing predispositions and motivating circumstances, for its negative effects to manifest. Returning to the analogy between power and addictive tendencies, we can argue that so long as the extent of power remains within the limit of triggering merely ‘liking’, we may want power but are unlikely to pursue it to our own disadvantage. But if the exercise of power prompts us to experience a high, in the absence of the right structural frameworks, we may begin to crave this feeling—and craving can, in turn, trigger a change in our priorities. When this occurs, we subordinate moral considerations and concern for our fellow humans to the pursuit of power and self-interest. The second caveat is that despite the tendency of power to corrupt, it may still be used for bad and good alike. This idea was taken up by psychologist David McClelland, who considered the thirst for power to be a primary human motivator. McClelland distinguishes between “the negative or personal face of power” and “the positive or socialized face of power,” which he said is marked by a focus on group goals and a concern with supporting group members to achieve them.

The Experience of Power 

Russell accompanied his warning about the intoxication of power with the prediction that it can lead ‘towards a certain kind of madness’, which he called ‘the greatest danger of our time.’ The empirical insights presented above allow us to identify the intoxicating effect of power as a form of addiction and to recognize the madness that Russell refers to as hubris. It is also worth considering the danger that craving personal power can pose when there is an alignment between negative predispositions, wrong circumstances, and the lack of accountable structural limits. As our ability to secure power over others is impeded by the strength of their will, only certain people will experience an excessive amount of power over others. In addition, the degree to which such power is destructive may increase over time. As power is one of the fundamental drivers of human action, everyone feels its allure in some way or another. But, as is typical of addictive/craving tendencies, the appetite for power grows with consumption. Accordingly, Russell observes that the ‘love of power is greatly increased by the experience of power.’ 

A combination of predispositions, circumstances, inadequate structures, as well as the extent and duration of exercising power has the potential to transform some individuals’ relatively harmless love of power into a violent love of domination and a tendency towards cruelty. Combined with a (perceived) lack of consensus and accountability structures, such a transformation can be rapid. The adverse effects of unchecked power on human thoughts, feelings, and actions, when taken to the extreme, are reflected in a mindset that resembles what Russell described as ‘power philosophies.’

Exploring the links between Power, Gender, and Morality

New findings in neurobiology and neuropsychology have opened up new questions about the relationship between power, gender, and morality, not least whether women possess inherent qualities that help them, most of the time, manage leadership and power more ethically and efficiently. Behavioral studies and neuroimaging research have revealed that males and females vary in their moral judgments and in behaviors related to morality, such as empathy and aggression. Studies have also shown that among the various risk factors for antisocial behavior, “being male” stands out as a particularly strong predictor. This goes to show that biological, genetic, hormonal, and socio-cultural factors are all involved in gender-specific differences in the formation of moral judgment. 

Among the genetic factors that increase the risk for antisocial behavior, the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene is the most well-supported by research. Variants of the MAOA gene, notably the low-activity allele, are associated with an increased propensity for violence and antisocial behavior when its carriers are reared in adverse environments. MAOA is an X-linked gene, meaning males with only one X chromosome are more affected by mutations causing low enzyme activity compared to females who have two X chromosomes and can compensate by deactivating one. Studies show that individuals with the low-activity allele of this gene are twice as likely to exhibit aggressive behavior under social exclusion than those with the high-activity variant. These findings point to the interplay between genetic predispositions and environmental factors in shaping moral behavior, particularly showing that most males are prone to egocentric behavior when these genetic factors and adverse personal or societal environmental influences converge.

Reflections and implications 

I have shown how power can, under some circumstances, potentially have an addictive, corruptive, and destructive effect on some power holders. Power over others can also be understood as a stimulus that generates a feeling of gratification. It can be used instrumentally to gratify all other human desires, which makes it even more attractive to those who desire it. The various effects of power on how we think, feel, and behave can be advantageous to some powerful people, and the rewarding experience of holding power over others can intensify over time. At the same time, the experience of personal power can, under certain conditions, change individual attitudes to become more self-serving and less empathetic or make individual behavior become unethical. 

Still, in some circumstances, the potential corruptive force of power over others can be contained by limiting the experience of power to one of merely liking, avoiding the high that leads to craving and a change in human priorities. Socialized power, for instance, limits the excesses of the neurochemical process that can lead to craving power. While the claim that power corrupts is expressed in terms of unchecked personal hierarchical power, even power that is checked can, under the wrong circumstances, have such an effect by way of consent and a (perceived) measure of accountability. This is especially the case in the form of wide, objective, ethical, and competent consensus and advice. This helps limit the likelihood of unintended mistakes or lack of responsible oversight with inevitable neurochemical substrates of craving responses. It also reveals that although human beings are inclined to seek, maintain, and crave power, not everyone who aspires to power intends to abuse it or engage in acts that negatively affect the lives of others.

Understanding the irresponsible use of power as a form of extreme craving has ethical and political implications for relevant areas of philosophy. If we take seriously the idea that power can be addictive, our evaluation of the moral responsibility of some powerholders can be informed by the analogous debate about the moral responsibility of societal addictive tendencies. Typically, we hold people accountable when they control their actions. In the context of craving/addiction, whether and to what extent an addict’s behavior is compulsive can be empirically tested. The findings, in turn, can inform our judgments of moral responsibility. New research tools have also given us a deeper understanding of human nature. This, in turn, should help us create better policies for stable institutions and sustainable good governance.

We should remember that how we understand the nature of power has a strong bearing on how we organize our society and our place within it. A transdisciplinary analysis of power can help mitigate the risk of abusive tendencies under certain conditions and circumstances, as can effective checks through accountability and consensus. In a similar vein, transdisciplinary tools and research can also help those who aspire to use power to improve the lives of others or to achieve positive outcomes in a sincere, responsible, and efficacious way.

Nayef Al-Rodhan

Prof. Nayef Al-Rodhanis a Philosopher, Neuroscientist and Geostrategist. He holds an MD and PhD, and was educated and worked at the Mayo Clinic, Yale, and Harvard University. He is an Honorary Fellow of St. Antony's College, Oxford University; Head of the Geopolitics and Global Futures Department at the Geneva Center for Security Policy; Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Philosophy, School of Advanced Study, University of London; Member of the Global Future Councils at the World Economic Forum; and Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA).

In 2014, he was voted as one of the Top 30 most influential Neuroscientists in the world, in 2017, he was named amongst the Top 100 geostrategists in the World, and in 2022, he was named as one of the Top 50 influential researchers whose work could shape 21st-century politics and policy. 

He is a prize-winning scholar who has written 25 books and more than 300 articles, including most recently 21st-Century Statecraft: Reconciling Power, Justice And Meta-Geopolitical Interests, Sustainable History And Human Dignity, Emotional Amoral Egoism: A Neurophilosophy Of Human Nature And Motivations, and On Power: Neurophilosophical Foundations And Policy Implications. His current research focuses on transdisciplinarity, neuro-techno-philosophy, and the future of philosophy, with a particular emphasis on the interplay between philosophy, neuroscience, strategic culture, applied history, geopolitics, disruptive technologies, Outer Space security, international relations, and global security.