# Love, Power, and Justice

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-18 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: William S. Hatcher, Love, Power, and Justice, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> Published in the Journal of Bahá’í Studies Vol. 9, number 3 (1994)
> © Association for Bahá’í ™ Studies 1994
> 
> Sixteenth Hasan M. Balyuzi Memorial Lecture
> Love, Power, and Justice
> William S. Hatcher
> Abstract
> Human history is replete with systematic injustices, such as the persistence and ubiquity of slavery or the perennial
> domination of women by men. We hold that the pursuit of power, which has been the root cause of these injustices,
> was a moral choice to which there were viable alternatives, rejecting thereby the materialistic thesis that humans are
> inherently and ineradicably programmed to be powerseekers. Besides the fact of the abuse of power, there has also
> been the moral justification for this fact, provided primarily by various ideologies that attempt to legitimize
> interhuman cruelty as a defense of certain values which, though generated by humans themselves, are nevertheless
> presumed superior to humans. We hold that there are no such values—that the human being is indeed the highest
> value in creation. We can therefore escape the vicious cycle of ideologically justified cruelty by replacing the pursuit
> of power with the pursuit of authentic interhuman relationships based on altruistic love and universal mutuality.
> 
> I am very honored and gratified at being invited to deliver this year’s Hasan Balyuzi Lecture. I met Hasan Balyuzi
> only once, briefly, at the International Congress in Royal Albert Hall in London in 1963, but of course I, like most of
> us, have read his many works of scholarship on the Faith. Also, you may know that, in writing The Bahá’í Faith:
> The Emerging Global Religion, Douglas Martin and I added a detailed appendix about E. G. Browne and the Bahá’í
> Faith which draws heavily on Hasan Balyuzi’s scholarship in this area. So I think it will be years and perhaps even
> centuries before we are able to appreciate fully what he accomplished.
> 
> The Theme of Authenticity in World Literature
> The theme of authenticity in human relationships comes to the forefront of world literature in the nineteenth century.
> I am thinking of authors such as Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Ibsen, Victor Hugo, Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce, and of
> philosophers such as Kierkegaard. This theme seems to have emerged almost spontaneously in several different
> cultural milieux, as can be seen from the above short list of authors from Russia, Scandinavia, Europe, and America.
> This literature presents a certain analysis of the human condition that rests upon the following two theses. (1) The
> true meaning of human existence consists in the establishment of authentic relationships between and among human
> beings. Everything else which has a value, has a value only insofar as it contributes to authenticity in human
> relationships. According to this view of the human condition, nothing else but the establishment of authentic
> interhuman relationships could possibly be the central meaning of human existence. (2) At the same time, the human
> condition is such that most people appear unable to sustain authentic relationships. For example, most people will,
> under certain circumstances, betray their friends and loved ones in order to save themselves.
> By an authentic relationship between two people, we mean a totally reciprocal relationship based on the
> mutual recognition of the universal value which they each share as human beings and which is inherent in their
> essential nature. This value is their uniquely human capacities of consciousness, of intellect, of feeling (heart), and
> of will. The mark of authenticity in human relations is the presence of self-sacrificing (unconditional) love, or
> altruism.
> This, of course, is lateral authenticity, i.e., authenticity in interhuman relationships. There is also vertical
> authenticity, i.e., authenticity in our relationship with God. Vertical authenticity is based on our conscious
> submission to God as a moral authority higher than ourselves. Ultimately, lateral authenticity depends on vertical
> authenticity because it is only in an authentic relationship with God that we acquire and develop the capacity for
> authentic relationships with our fellows.
> There is a God-intended subtlety here. Our relationship with God is an unobservable, inner relationship, but
> the way we treat others is, for the most part, observable and constitutes the outer reflection of our inner relationship
> with God: lateral authenticity is the proof or evidence of vertical authenticity. In other words, lateral authenticity
> consists in what we are and do, rather than in what we say, think, or feel about ourselves. If our actions towards
> others consistently betray cruel and selfish motives, it is quite useless for us to claim that, inside and underneath it
> all, we are really warm, loving, sincerely motivated individuals with an intense inner relationship with God.1
> Because lateral authenticity is largely observable, it has been the prime focus of the literary works
> generated by the authors listed above. However, the vertical dimension of authenticity is always present and, for
> authors such as Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky, becomes quite explicit at times.
> 
> The Frustration of the Will to Authenticity
> If authenticity is the meaning of life and if humans generally fail in their attempts at authenticity, then it follows that
> most of us miss the central purpose of our existence. This is indeed a troubling proposition and one which should
> incite us to reflect deeply about human nature and human capacity.
> Let us call this view of the human condition the dilemma of authenticity. Simply stated, the dilemma of
> authenticity is that, on one hand, the deepest needs of our essential nature impel us towards authenticity but, on the
> other hand, certain limitations of this same nature prevent most of us from achieving authenticity. This unsatisfied
> hunger for authenticity creates what we might call the frustration of the will to authenticity. We now examine the
> thesis that the frustrated will to authenticity is the key to understanding the dynamics of the various ideological
> struggles which have dominated the twentieth century.
> 
> Cultural Solutions to the Dilemma of Authenticity
> The history of the Russian people is fraught with sufferings, privations, and injustices. In the years before 1861,
> when Tsar Alexander II finally liberated the serfs from bondage, fully ninety percent of the population of Russia was
> in servitude. The other ten percent consisted primarily of intellectuals and aristocrats, mostly living in either
> Moscow or St. Petersburg. Within a generation of the liberation of the serfs, the Bolshevik revolution effectively re-
> enslaved the entire population, a condition from which Russia is just now barely emerging. There never has been in
> Russia a middle class comparable to that of the modern nation-states of Europe and North America.
> This history has forged in the Russian national psyche a quality of stoic endurance and survivalism that has
> few equals elsewhere: Russians generally do not expect life to be easy or fair, nor do they have illusions that lovers
> are always faithful or that friends never betray. Yet, their art and literature consistently picture authentic human
> relations as the meaning and goal of existence.
> Thus, the “classical” Russian view of the human condition is that we are condemned to the noble pursuit of
> an impossible goal. In this worldview, the meaning of life consists not in external success, which is largely
> considered to be impossible in any case, but rather, in the nobility and dignity with which we accept and respond to
> the sufferings and the injustices of life.
> Further, in this view nothing in the material world is permanent. Permanence can only be obtained from
> that which transcends purely material limitations in some way—primarily art, literature, music, and dance. The truly
> wise do not waste efforts in a futile attempt to remodel the material world, because any material transformation will,
> sooner or later, regress and degenerate. Moreover, the material world is so unpredictable that we can never be
> certain of achieving any goal, no matter how intensely we pursue it. Society is thus not viewed as an arena where the
> individual acts freely in the pursuit of individual goals. The fundamental expression of human freedom lies not in
> the pursuit of success but in the care with which one chooses one’s friends, who are perceived as comrades-in-arms
> in the struggle against the sufferings of life.
> In other words, the Russian solution to the dilemma of authenticity is to focus primarily on the process by
> which authenticity is pursued, over which we do have some significant degree of control, rather than on the results
> of the process (the degree of success we actually obtain), over which we have very little control. While being
> satisfactory on one level, this solution is profoundly unsatisfactory on another, and it gives rise to what we may call
> a thirst for absolutes—a longing that has become a significant characteristic of the Russian psyche. My thesis is that
> it is this thirst for absolutes that created the conditions for the Russian people to accept the absolutist doctrine of
> Communism, which seeks to establish an absolutely egalitarian society, and thus to establish authentic relations by
> social decree rather than through cumulative individual effort.
> Marx was, after all, a social determinist who believed, apparently sincerely, that appropriate social
> structures could completely determine individual human behavior. Like other materialists, Marx thought that
> humans are ineradicably selfish and egotistical. It is therefore utopian to hope that humans can be truly altruistic in
> their fundamental motivation. In Marx’s view, this was the basic error of religion—that it sought to change the
> unchangeable and essentially selfish heart of man. But Marxists thought that one can, nevertheless, realistically hope
> to obtain altruistic behavior through the implementation of appropriate social structures (the socialization of the
> means of production), because under these conditions everyone will see that service to the collectivity is in his or her
> own self interest. In other words, within a socialist framework, the essentially selfish motivation of the individual
> and the interests of the collectivity would simply coincide.
> Thus, the ethical thrust of Marxism is the notion that it is possible to obtain altruistic behavior in the
> absence of altruistic motivation. Let us designate this doctrine as the fundamental internal contradiction of Marxism.
> To sum up, the Russian solution to the dilemma of authenticity involves the thirst for absolutes, the noble
> pursuit of an impossible goal, the value given to human relations as a solidarity in the struggle against the sufferings
> of life, and the value given to artistic expression as a collective experience of transcendence. And these very
> characteristics of the Russian solution formed the basis for the vast social experiment that was Bolshevism.2
> Let us turn now to a consideration of the American solution to the dilemma of authenticity. In considering
> the genesis of contemporary American culture, we should realize that the authenticity dilemma was elucidated just
> as forcefully in American literature as it was in the literature of Russia. For example, in Mark Twain’ s novel
> Huckleberry Finn a young white boy (Huck Finn) aids an illiterate black man, Jim, to escape from slavery. As Finn
> muses on what he has done, he realizes that he has violated every norm of his society, including the moral and
> spiritual norms of his church, which would say that he is going to everlasting hell for helping free Jim. He goes so
> far as to compose a handwritten note denouncing Jim to the authorities but then is overcome by recollections of
> Jim’s kindness and humanity. He finally tears up the unsent note, saying, “All right, then, I’ll go to hell” (Clemens
> 168). In this single powerful phrase, one of the more poignant moments in all literature, Twain affirms that the
> authentic relationship between Huck and Jim is of greater spiritual value than all other moral and social norms,
> including eternal self-interest.
> However, in spite of this and other clear presentations of the authenticity theme in American literature, the
> dominant values of American culture have led to quite a different approach to these questions. America is an action-
> oriented, individualistic, pragmatic culture which has transformed a dense wilderness into a highly urbanized society
> in the space of a few generations. This accomplishment has given many Americans the sense that the challenges of
> life are primarily material and that material problems can always be overcome if practically approached with
> sufficient energy and will power. From this point of view, the natural conditions of human existence do not have to
> be passively endured but can be transformed into artificially constructed conditions which serve as replacements or
> substitutes. Excellence or perfection is achieved not by working in and through natural conditions, but by
> overcoming or defeating natural conditions.
> Thus, generally speaking, the American response to the dilemma of authenticity is that we should dedicate
> ourselves to creating the best possible substitutes for authenticity. This quest gives rise to the fundamental internal
> contradiction of American society: the attempt to achieve the appearance of sincerity without the substance. As one
> observer of the American scene has expressed it: “To achieve success in America, the most important thing is
> sincerity. When you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
> So, starting with Hollywood movies in the beginning of this century, American culture has increasingly
> become a vast machine for the generation of illusions. Hollywood films portray a world where evil and suffering are
> nonexistent, or else where suffering is perpetrated on thoroughly innocent and wholesome victims (us) by totally
> evil and depraved forces that are always defeated in the end. This was epitomized by the Disney movies, the Disney
> view of life, and finally the creation of illusory environments—Disney worlds—from which all semblance of evil
> and suffering is banished.
> The same themes reappear in commercial television beginning in the l950s, then in computer games, and
> finally in virtual reality and the Internet. All these products of popular culture generate increasingly sophisticated
> substitutes for authentic human interactions. They seek to give us the emotional feeling of authenticity without any
> real authentic engagement on our part.
> I stress here the attitudes towards pain, suffering, and evil because they are so central to authenticity. The
> struggle between good and evil lies within the heart of each individual human being since each of us has the
> capacity both for good and for evil. Indeed, this inner struggle is the very essence of life, and it is the central theme
> of all great literature. This struggle is totally trivialized by the popular American cultural myth that evil is the work
> only of a minority of identifiably evil people.
> Moreover, each of us is most vitally concerned with whatever causes pain in our lives. To have an authentic
> relationship with the other is to share the concerns of the other, and we therefore cannot do this without being
> genuinely open to sharing each other’s pain. Thus, the popular American view that pain is unjust, unnatural, or
> abnormal is fundamentally anti-authentic. If we are willing to share with others only the pleasant, our relationship
> with them will be superficial because the deepest concerns each of us has about life come from that which gives us
> pain and suffering. The creation of substitutes for authenticity is an attempt to achieve the joyous feeling of
> authentic friendship but without the sharing of pain and suffering that is the essential condition for authentic
> relations.
> Thus, the American solution to the dilemma of authenticity is virtually the antithesis of the Russian
> solution, which considers the sharing of pain in the face of the difficulties of life as the very meaning and basis of
> friendship. In the collective American self-image, the inauthenticity of the American solution is transformed into
> such “positive” values as the right and freedom of the individual to pursue happiness, unhampered by any
> commitment to society or responsibility for the suffering of others.
> Twentieth-century Europe has been caught between the Russian bear and the American eagle, and its
> dominant ideology has been fascism. Fascism combines the authoritarianism and absolutism of Stalinist communism
> with the elitism of American capitalist individualism. It is, so to speak, the worst of both worlds. Since the facts of
> this history are so well known, we will take them for granted in the ensuing exposition without any detailed
> discussion of them here.
> 
> Ideology and Authenticity
> We now put forward the thesis that these ideological movements, which have largely determined the character of
> life in the twentieth century, have not been driven mainly by their abstract ideological content, which has been
> endlessly debated, but rather by the fact they are all just different expressions, however distorted, of the frustrated
> will to authenticity. In other words, these ideologies served as collective psychological defense mechanisms to avoid
> confronting the frustration of relational authenticity.
> To understand how and why ideology may come to play such a role, let us recall the fundamental thesis
> that every single human being has the potential both for good and for evil. Cruel acts, such as murder, rape, and
> torture, which seek deliberately to harm others, are recognized as evil by the vast majority of human beings. Such
> acts involve a degree of intention—of conscious motivation—which obliges the perpetrators to confront their own
> lack of humanity in committing them. Under normal circumstances of everyday life, it appears that only an extreme
> minority of human beings are morally capable of such acts.
> Undoubtedly this is true because most of us have a self-image as moral (“good”) people, and we cannot
> maintain this image of ourselves if we knowingly commit an act we judge to be immoral. However, suppose we
> become convinced that certain ideas and doctrines are more important than human beings. It then becomes morally
> justifiable to sacrifice human beings, or authentic human relationships, if such sacrifice is judged necessary to the
> propagation or survival of these cherished ideals. In this case, the self-same acts which, under normal circumstances,
> were grossly immoral have now become heroic. We are not perpetrating deliberate cruelty on others, we are
> courageously defending higher values from their enemies.
> In other words, ideology gives moral justification to inauthentic behavior, even the deliberate perpetration
> of cruelty towards others. Therein lies both the attraction and the power of ideology. Belief in an ideology relieves
> us of the necessity of the disciplined pursuit of authentic relationships by authenticizing inauthentic behavior,
> including active cruelty and hatred towards certain appropriately defined others. Thus, the fact of inauthentic
> behavior is conjoined with a moral justification for that fact, thereby allowing “good people” to do truly bad things.
> Moreover, this mechanism obtains independently of the specific content of the ideology. For example, one
> could hardly find an ideal more exalted than the altruistic love taught by Jesus Christ. Yet, historians tell us that after
> his religion was transformed into an ideology at Nicea in 325 AD., more Christians were killed by fellow Christians
> in disputes over doctrine than were killed during three hundred years of persecution by the Roman State. A thousand
> years later, during the Inquisition in Europe, thousands of Christians were burnt to death because Church authorities
> considered them to hold heretical beliefs. One cannot derive any significant understanding of the Inquisition by a
> logical analysis of the doctrines that were deemed orthodox or heretical. It was the fact of holding some belief—any
> belief—superior to human beings that gave moral justification to cruelty.
> Indeed, if we humans can murder each other in the name of a religion whose acknowledged fundamental
> principle is altruistic love, then we must accept that we all have within us the potential to conceive of an appropriate
> ideological justification for any cruelty whatsoever. In this perverted (ideo)logic, the more humanitarian the ideal,
> the more easy to justify cruelty in its defense.
> In the same way, our thesis holds that one cannot derive any useful understanding of Russia or Russians by
> an intellectual analysis of Marxist theory. But when we understand the deep Russian thirst for absolute authenticity,
> we can begin to understand what made them willing to embark on the communist experiment on such a vast scale,
> and what made so many otherwise gentle and hospitable people participate in the vast Stalinist campaign of betrayal
> and slaughter of their fellow countrymen.
> In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the whole of Europe was talking of socialism and the
> socialist movement. Yet Russia, virtually the only para-European country which had no genuine proletariat (or
> genuine bourgeoisie, for that matter), was the very society which actually implemented the radical changes
> suggested by Marxist theory. Lenin’s oratory and public persona reflected a deep intuitive understanding of the
> Russian psyche and was clearly able to strike profound emotional chords to which Russians responded on a
> subrational level. Nevertheless, without the preexisting Russian thirst for authenticity, even Lenin probably could
> not have succeeded.
> Hitler and Mussolini played similar roles in their respective societies. Certainly, no analysis of the trivial
> but pernicious doctrines of National Socialism can explain why, in only one generation, Hitler was able to lead the
> German people to overthrow all of the fundamental values enshrined in their philosophical and cultural tradition and
> to adopt instead the de facto values of the crudest elements of their society—people who were barely more than
> criminals and psychopaths. Let us recall that only a few generations intervened between Kant’s categorical
> imperative and the Nazi death camps. But once put in the context of the immediately preceding history of German
> idealism and romanticism, with its yearning for authenticity, we can begin to understand how Hitler was able to
> convince the German people that his romantic supernationalism was the fulfillment of their deepest longings.
> Similarly, we can understand America not in terms of the endless public prattle about democracy and
> human rights, but by seeing American culture as primarily an expression of self-indulgent attempts to avoid even the
> minimal degree of pain and suffering necessary to the achievement of authenticity in human relationships. This latter
> view also explains the general insensitivity of Americans to the prevailing suffering that exists within their own
> society.
> For example, according to official United States government statistics, fully one-fifth of the population
> lives below the poverty line, Many in this condition are single, Black mothers, and society in general seems to care
> very little about these people. Why? Because, again, there is the persistent myth that America is the land of
> opportunity where all are totally free to achieve whatever success they desire. This myth holds that there is no social
> injustice—people choose their destiny. If some have chosen to have babies out of wedlock instead of getting a good
> education and a good job, well, that’s their free choice. The point is that the public discourse about individual rights
> and free choice serves as a defense mechanism against acknowledging the degree of inauthenticity represented by
> the general insensitivity to the serious social problems which exist in America and the sufferings that result from
> them.
> Let us sum up. We are suggesting that the most fundamental problem of the contemporary world is the
> dilemma of authenticity. Rather than acknowledging this and facing it directly, the dominant cultures of the
> twentieth century have taken refuge in ideologies which attribute greater value to certain ideas than they do to
> human beings, thereby giving moral justification to inauthentic human relationships, and even to acts of extreme
> cruelty and depravity such as murder, rape, and torture. These ideologies allow us to be insensitive to the sufferings
> of others, and even actively cruel towards others, and, at the same time, to feel morally justified rather than guilty.
> Of course, we need ideals and doctrines, but ideals and doctrines should serve human beings rather than
> enslaving them. Shoghi Effendi affirms this idea as follows:
> 
> The call of Bahá’u’lláh is primarily directed against all forms of provincialism, all insularities and
> prejudices. If long-cherished ideals and time-honored institutions, if certain social assumptions and
> religious formulae have ceased to promote the welfare of the generality of mankind, if they no longer
> minister to the needs of a continually evolving humanity, let them he swept away and relegated to the limbo
> of obsolescent and forgotten doctrines. . . For legal standards, political and economic theories are solely
> designed to safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole, and not humanity to be crucified for the
> preservation of the integrity of any particular law or doctrine. (World Order 42)
> 
> Powerseeking and Injustice
> Not only the modern period, but the whole of human history is pervaded by cruelty and injustice. When I speak of
> historical injustice, I am not referring simply to sporadic unjust acts that individuals may perpetrate in their everyday
> relations with each other. Rather, I have in mind such systematic and persistent social injustices as slavery,
> economic exploitation, racism, and the oppression of women.
> The fundamental question we now ask is the following. If indeed we have so often failed to pursue
> relational authenticity, then what have we pursued in its stead? The answer Bahá’u’lláh gives to this question is
> straightforward and unequivocal: power. We have pursued power instead of authenticity.
> As Bahá’u’lláh explains, the root cause of all the major injustices of history has been the pursuit of power
> and dominance over others. Here is one passage where He clearly articulates this thesis:
> 
> And amongst the realms of unity is the unity of rank and station. It redoundeth to the exaltation of
> the Cause, glorifying it among all peoples. Ever since the seeking of preference and distinction came into
> play, the world hath been laid waste. It hath become desolate. Those who have quaffed from the ocean of
> divine utterance and fixed their gaze upon the Realm of Glory should regard themselves as being on the
> same level as the others and in the same station. Were this matter to be definitely established and
> conclusively demonstrated through the power and might of God, the world would become as the Abhá
> Paradise.
> Indeed, man is noble, inasmuch as each one is a repository of the sign of God. Nevertheless, to
> regard oneself as superior in knowledge, learning or virtue, or to exalt oneself or seek preference, is a
> grievous transgression. Great is the blessedness of those who are adorned with the ornament of this unity
> and have been graciously confirmed by God. (Qtd. in Universal House of Justice, 206.3 a–b)
> 
> Notice that what is here deemed the cause of injustice is the seeking of power, not power itself. Without
> power we can do nothing, neither good nor evil. The error lies in pursuing power for its own sake—in making power
> an end in itself rather than the means to other ends that are moral and socially productive.
> Indeed, as Bahá’u’lláh explicitly acknowledges, each of us possesses a certain degree of power in the form
> of autonomy, i.e., the development of our God-given capacities of mind, heart, and will. But to use that power to
> establish our dominance over others constitutes a moral and spiritual error. To pursue power is to misuse power.
> We may of course misuse power without pursuing power. For example, we may harm someone by the
> exercise of our power even though we sincerely intend to do good (e.g., a surgeon who sincerely tries to heal but
> makes a professional mistake). Such misuses of power are an inevitable part of the process of learning how to use
> power appropriately. But the pursuit of power for its own sake is always wrong because the very intention is itself
> immoral, regardless of the external consequences.
> Notice that Bahá’u’lláh does not deny that there can be people superior to others in knowledge, learning, or
> virtue. Rather, he makes it clear that these superior people, whoever they may be, are definitely not those who think
> of themselves as superior. In other words, the very fact of considering yourself superior to another person makes you
> morally inferior to that person.
> But what does it really mean to pursue power? We have power to the extent that we have control over the
> material and human resources of society. To pursue power is thus to seek to increase our control over others. This
> negative notion of power must be logically separated from the positive notion of power as autonomy or self-
> development, which means increasing our control over ourselves. Indeed, the pursuit of self-development and self-
> control is an important component of the pursuit of authentic relations with others: the greater our self-development,
> the more we have to give others and to share with them.
> Henceforth, whenever we speak of power or the pursuit of power, we will presume, unless explicitly stated
> otherwise, the connotation of power in the negative sense of dominance and control over others.
> Power over others can be pursued in many ways besides outright physical dominance. For example, we
> may seek to occupy those societal roles to which the collectivity has attributed power or status. Playing a powerful
> social role will provide us with many social situations in which we can easily dominate others if we choose to do
> so.3 Also, we have the illusion that the status of such a role actually changes or augments our intrinsic status as
> human beings—as if the fact of playing the role of doctor or politician actually changes what we are.
> Recall that authentic relationships are totally reciprocal relationships based on the mutual recognition of
> universal and intrinsic value. Such relationships are therefore completely symmetric. However, power-based
> relationships are essentially asymmetrical and therefore inauthentic. Indeed, it is logically impossible for me to hold
> power over you and you to hold power over me at the same time and in the same way. Thus, the pursuit of power
> leads unavoidably to asymmetrical, inauthentic relationships.
> Another prevalent means of seeking power is competition, in which we each seek to outperform the other
> in some manner. Since it is logically impossible for me to outperform you and you to outperform me at the same
> time and in the same way, competition likewise undermines the symmetry of authenticity. Notice that a simple
> comparison between our two performances does not in itself constitute competition. Competition is striving to
> outperform the other with the goal of attributing to oneself a higher value than to the other.
> It is most important to distinguish competition from the pursuit of excellence. To strive for excellence is to
> seek to improve our performance over time. It is a vertical comparison between two different performances of the
> same individual at different times. Competition is the lateral comparison of performances by two different
> individuals at the same time. These are different pursuits.
> However, it is sometimes said that, even though different from the pursuit of excellence, competition is
> nevertheless necessary as a stimulus to the former. Let us examine this more closely.
> Suppose I am striving to outperform you in some task (say, playing the violin). What strategies can I
> deploy to achieve this goal? One possible strategy is to improve my performance over time (pursue excellence) so
> that I can eventually outperform you. But what if you are also striving to improve your performance? No matter how
> much progress I make, I have no guarantee that you will not make equal or greater progress and that I will ever be
> successful in outperforming you.
> Of course, if excellence is our goal, there is no problem. The world will be better off with two excellent
> performers instead of two mediocre performers where one is recognizably better than the other. But if winning the
> mutual competition is my goal, then I will not be content with striving for excellence year after year only to see you
> continue to outperform me (because your performance is also improving).
> Thus, the pursuit of excellence is not the optimal strategy for winning a competition. What better strategy is
> there? The answer is sabotage. Sabotaging my opponent’s performance (and preventing him or her from sabotaging
> mine) will be a superior strategy for winning the competition. It takes much less energy than the pursuit of
> excellence and the outcome is quicker and surer.
> Sabotage is always a viable strategy and often the preferred strategy for winning a competition, but under
> no circumstances can sabotage lead to an increase in excellence for either the saboteur or the sabotee. Thus, we
> achieve excellence by pursuing excellence, not by pursuing competitive strategies towards others. The pursuit of
> excellence and competition are two fundamentally different undertakings.4
> 
> The Logic of Powerseeking
> The prevalence of powerseeking behavior in our history explains the prevalence of injustice in our history.
> However, there still remains the question of why we so often seek power instead of authentic relationships.
> Fundamentally, there are two possible answers to this question.
> The first answer is the one given by materialists, who say that we seek power because we are condemned
> by our nature to do so—we literally cannot do otherwise. This is the well-known view that people are just animals,
> aggressive and egotistical by nature. In this view, the superior intelligence of humans over “other animals” only
> serves to make human powerseeking more effective and more subtle.
> We reject this view because it is unscientific. It does not explain the observable facts of history. It explains
> the injustice and cruelty but not the altruism, the love, and the self-sacrifice. Any satisfactory explanation of human
> nature must account for the whole spectrum of human behavior, and this spectrum shows clearly that humans are
> capable both of extreme altruism and extreme cruelty. If our natures inclined us only to evil, then our history should
> contain nothing else but evil and cruelty, which is demonstrably not the case.5
> If we reject the materialist view, then we can no longer simply explain away human cruelty as a
> spontaneous expression of human nature. Because people are free to do otherwise, cruelty is a choice they make. It
> is not enough to say that we are all influenced by society and that good people are led into cruelty by an influential
> minority of truly evil people. If we have learned anything about human behavior it is that our actions are goal
> directed, purposeful, logically motivated. There are reasons and causes for the way we act. What, then, is the logic
> of powerseeking? What do we seek to achieve by struggling to dominate and control others?
> We, of course, seek happiness. Nothing could be more logical than the fact that everyone prefers happiness
> over unhappiness. Whenever we perceive that our happiness lies in a certain direction, it is only logical that we will
> pursue that course. The only alternative would be deliberately to choose unhappiness over happiness, which would
> be the very essence of irrationality (or else a deep pathology such as masochistic self-hatred).
> We all begin life as helpless and needful infants. We cannot survive unless our needs are satisfied by
> autonomous (powerful) caregivers. This initial experience leads us spontaneously and uncritically to identify need-
> satisfaction with happiness or contentment. As we grow towards adulthood, we ourselves become more autonomous,
> and we also understand that the adult world is unlike the world of childhood. Now, the rule is that we cannot survive
> unless we act to satisfy our needs, and it appears to us that the more power we have, the more certainly our needs
> will be satisfied, and therefore the happier we will be.
> The following logical chain thus appears reasonable from the point of view of the individual. The goal of
> life is to be happy. I cannot be happy unless my needs are satisfied. The satisfaction of my needs is my personal
> responsibility—a responsibility that no one else is going to assume. The more control I have over material and
> human resources, the more effectively I can act to satisfy my needs and thus the happier I will be. In particular, the
> greater my power over others, the more certainly I can compel them to recognize my value and satisfy my needs. In
> the final analysis, it is all very clear and simple. The goal and purpose of life is to be happy, and the more power I
> have over others, the happier I am likely to be.
> We thus pursue power in the name of happiness. Indeed, in the end we equate an increase in power with an
> increase in happiness: power = happiness, so we assume. Yet, our previous analysis has already established that the
> pursuit of power is the root cause of injustice, and injustice the root cause of massive unhappiness. What, then, is
> wrong with the above argument?
> The fatal error in this otherwise sound argument lies in the presumption/assumption that all human needs
> can be satisfied by an appropriate exercise of power over others. Indeed, there is one universal human need—the
> most fundamental of all—which no amount of power can satisfy. This is the need to love and be loved. The very
> nature of love is that it cannot be compelled.
> Suppose for example that I am granted absolute power over you. Such power is exercised through the threat
> of suffering and/or the promise of rewards. By these means I can dictate and manipulate your every action. I can
> enslave you; I can force you to do my bidding under all circumstances. Yet, the one thing that I cannot do is force
> you to love me. In fact, the more I exercise my power over you, the less inclined you will be to love me.
> Love has to be invited. It comes only when certain necessary conditions are established. These conditions
> are what we call justice. Justice constitutes those conditions under which love is born and flourishes. Thus, what we
> have done in the past is to pursue power and to sacrifice justice and thus love in the process. What we should have
> done is to pursue love by using (sacrificing) our power to establish justice. The establishment of justice is, therefore,
> the authentic use or exercise of power.
> 
> The Nature of Love
> Love is the only interhuman transaction that is experienced positively both by giver and receiver: it feels good to
> love and it feels good to be loved. For other transactions, such as pure justice, we may recognize intellectually their
> positive value without experiencing them positively. Love is the archetypical “win-win” transaction where there is
> no trade-off: both parties benefit.
> Although we do have a need to love and be loved, the happiness brought by love goes beyond mere need-
> satisfaction. It is intrinsic in the very experience of love itself. Indeed, as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá makes clear, love is the only
> basis of an enduring happiness:
> 
> Know thou of a certainly that Love is the secret of Gods holy Dispensation, the manifestation of the All-
> Merciful, the fountain of spiritual outpourings. Love is heaven’s kindly light, the Holy Spirit’s eternal
> breath that vivifieth the human soul. Love is the cause of God’s revelation unto man, the vital bond
> inherent, in accordance with the divine creation, in the realities of things. Love is the one means that
> ensureth true felicity both in this world and the next. (Selections 12.1)
> 
> Love arises from the recognition or perception of value. We love that which we perceive as valuable. Such a
> perception may arise spontaneously or else may result from a process of search and discovery. Love is thus based on
> a certain kind of knowledge—the knowledge of value—and it is the implementation of this knowledge that
> constitutes justice, i.e., the conditions under which love is born and flourishes. Justice is, in a certain sense, the
> underlying or latent cognitive component of love.
> The emotional component of love generates within us the desire to approach the beloved object and to
> establish an intimate, harmonious relationship with it. If we love an objet d’art, we would like to possess it; if we
> love a pet animal, then we want to possess it and take care of it; if we love another human being, then we want to
> establish an intimate and harmonious relationship with that person. The voluntary component of love is represented
> by all the actions we take in response to the perception of and attachment to the perceived value of the beloved
> object.
> We speak here of the perceived value of the beloved object to allow for the possibility that we may
> misperceive and therefore love falsely. Indeed, a fundamental truth of human nature is that our behavior is
> determined not by reality itself but by our perception of reality. Of course, to the degree that our perceptions are
> accurate, we are responding to reality, but in all cases the quality of our response will be a function of the inner
> model we have built out of our subjective experience of the reality in question. For example, we all know the
> phenomenon of falling in love with the image that we have ourselves projected onto another person.
> Thus, authentic justice is accurate knowledge of the intrinsic (real) value of the other, coupled with
> implementation of this knowledge in our relationship with the other. Authentic love is based on authentic justice.
> The intrinsic value of human beings is precisely the God-given, innate, spiritual capacities of
> consciousness, mind, heart, and will. It is what ‘Abdu’l-Bahá calls the “image of God” within the soul of the
> individual (Promulgation 69–70). When we truly perceive this God-created value of the other, then we see a beauty
> which attracts us spontaneously: we love it. Thus, authentic love is not a loving in spite of the faults and limitations
> of the other but a love because of the true inner value of the other. Any attempt to love the other in the absence of
> knowledge of the reality of the other will lead either to frustration or to hypocrisy.
> Authentic love has two components: an active component, which we call concern, and a passive
> component, which we designate as acceptance. In concern, we mobilize our inner resources towards the
> enhancement of the wellbeing of the other. In acceptance, we put no preconditions on our concern. We do not
> require that the other change in order to merit our love. Authentic or altruistic love is thus unconditional. Concern
> without acceptance is conditional love, and acceptance without concern is tolerance. Tolerance is “live and let live”:
> we accept the other’s right to he what he or she chooses, but we are indifferent to the well-being of the other.
> Parental love is sometimes conditional. The parents are genuinely concerned for the well-being of their
> child and make many sacrifices in that regard. However, they may, at the same time, have great difficulty in
> accepting some of their child’s limitations (perhaps because they see these limitations as a reflection of their own).
> Accurate perception of the other’s reality is the basis of both acceptance and concern. When we know others, we
> know both their value (what they are) and their limits (what they are not). Knowledge of limits is just as important
> as knowledge of value, because it enables us to have realistic and fair expectations towards the other. This means
> that we do not burden others by projecting onto them our expectations of what they should be.
> Since intrinsic value is universal, it is shared by all, including ourselves. Thus, recognizing our own
> intrinsic value is an essential aspect of justice, of learning to love authentically. When we are secure in the
> knowledge of our own capacities and limitations, then we can love and accept ourselves for what we are. We then
> no longer seek to get our value from others through such strategies as competition and powerseeking. We are freed
> from the power imperative.
> Thus, altruistic love is a force of attraction between two human beings based on the recognition of intrinsic
> value, both in the self and in the other. Therefore, replacing the pursuit of power by the pursuit of love means
> exchanging the vicious cycle of increasing power and diminishing happiness, for the virtuous cycle of a decreasing
> need for power and an increase in autonomy and wellbeing (authentic happiness).
> 
> Renouncing Powerseeking
> It is hard at first to understand why the change from a power orientation to a love orientation in our relations with
> others is so difficult, Once we see intellectually that love is the source of authentic happiness and that powerseeking
> leads us astray, why can we not achieve happiness by a simple act of will?
> The answer is that we are extremely adept at hiding—from others but from ourselves as well—the subtle
> ways we seek power. To renounce powerseeking we must have a clarity of self-insight that is not casually achieved.
> In the light of our foregoing analysis of the dynamics of powerseeking, let us examine further some of its intricacies.
> We have seen above that the basis of authentic interhuman relationships is altruistic love, and the basis of
> altruistic love is the awareness of the intrinsic and universal value inherent in each individual soul. Therefore,
> powerseeking can arise only in the context of a relative unawareness of intrinsic and universal values.
> Suppose, for example, that we negate intrinsicality. We then obtain the collectivist view that individuals
> have no value in and of themselves. All value resides in the collectivity. Individuals are therefore impelled to seek
> power by occupying those societal roles to which the collectivity attributes a value. This was the underlying
> dynamic of powerseeking in collectivist societies such as communist Russia.
> Suppose, now, that we negate universality. In this context, we may well recognize individual value, but it
> will consist of those characteristics or abilities which specialize individuals—which differentiate and separate us
> from each other—rather than those capacities which we share. This supervaluation of the special is the basic value
> context in highly individualistic and competitive societies such as North America today.
> The moral error involved in supervaluing the special lies not in the simple recognition of individually
> differentiated abilities. Michael Jordan is in fact an extraordinary basketball player; he can indeed put balls through
> hoops better than anyone else. Wayne Gretzky is an exceptionally skilled player of ice hockey; he knocks pucks into
> nets much better than you or I. The error lies in the exaggerated importance given to these special abilities,
> especially as compared with universal and intrinsically valuable functions such as motherhood.
> Indeed, motherhood is clearly the most fundamental role in society. In most cases, from the moment a child
> is born until it becomes an autonomous adult, the child’s mother will give priority to the needs of her child over her
> own needs. This represents a high degree of self-sacrifice—of altruism—and very few children would survive
> infancy without this perennial sacrifice by mothers. Indeed, if only one generation of women all over the world
> refused to play this role, it would be the end of the human race, forever. But society could clearly survive quite well
> if professional sports ceased to exist altogether. Yet, our individualistic society disdains motherhood as “ordinary”
> (any female can be a mother) but considers successful sportsmen as heroes, worthy of the immense social and
> material resources that are laid at their feet.
> What we have, here, is a confusion between the merely ordinary or general, on one hand, and the universal, on the
> other. Sickness is an example of something that is ordinary without being universal. Motherhood is universal, and
> not just general, because it is an expression of the universal, intrinsic capacities of the human being: the capacity for
> love, for self-sacrifice, for action dedicated to the good of others. Our society’s devaluation of the role of
> motherhood amounts to treating childbearing as if it were in fact an illness to be cured.
> Let us consider this dialectic between the universal and the special in a more general context. Any two
> entities in existence may be compared according to their degree of similarity or their degree of difference. Moreover,
> any two existents share at least some things in common (if nothing else, the fact that they both exist). Yet, no matter
> how similar, any two existents must differ in some respects (otherwise there would only the one identical existent
> and not two, and thus nothing to compare in the first place).
> Not only is there the question of the objective degree of similarity or difference between two existents,
> there is also the subjective question of what one chooses to emphasize when articulating a given comparison. In
> particular, for any mutual encounter between two human beings, the two parties involved always have a choice of
> whether to focus on their differences or on their similarities.
> The Bahá’í oneness principle—unity in diversity—yields a derivative similarity principle: that which any
> two human beings have in common is greater and more important than whatever differentiates them. In other words,
> close your eyes and pick any two human beings anywhere on earth. What they have in common—their essential
> human nature—is far more important than whatever separates them, whether cultural, physical, psychological,
> social, or religious. The basis of the oneness principle, and its derivative, the similarity principle, is the intrinsic and
> universal human nature created by God.
> Notice that the similarity principle does not hold generally for larger categories of existents. There are both
> similarities and differences between you and a dog. However, in most contexts, the differences between you and the
> dog (that you have a conscious rational soul and the dog doesn’t) are more important than the similarities.
> We have already seen that power-based relationships are necessarily asymmetrical. The pursuit of power
> leads to the exaggeration of differences, to the supervaluation of the special. In other words, our history is a history
> of injustice arising from the pursuit of power, and therefore a history in which we have explored exhaustively all the
> ways that humans can be differentiated one from the other. It is a history of differences.
> Men and women share a preexisting humanness in the identity of the human soul and its essential
> capacities, which are the same whether the given soul happens to be linked to a male or a female body.6 In the light
> of this overwhelming similarity between men and women, the purely physical gender differences appear rather
> unimportant. Yet these physical differences, more particularly the generally greater physical strength of men, have
> been made into the prime determinant of the relationship between men and women in every society from the
> beginning of time until the present day. That is an example of the supervaluation of the special.
> Similarly, all men share the same common humanity that is shared by men and women. Yet, the fact
> remains that those men with great physical strength and aggressiveness have influenced the course of history and the
> structure of society to a far greater extent than their less aggressive brothers, whatever qualities of mind, heart, and
> spirit these latter may have possessed. The physically strong have enslaved the physically weaker, again giving
> disproportionate value to the quality of purely physical strength.
> It is important to see that these historical configurations were deliberate moral choices. The fact that man
> can dominate woman is not a moral imperative for him to do so. He could have chosen instead to enter into a truly
> reciprocal relationship with woman, and even used his greater strength to protect and care for her rather than subdue
> her. The fact that a militarily superior race could dominate and enslave another race is not a moral imperative to do
> so. The militarily superior nation could use its strength to establish harmonious relationships with its neighbors.
> Our previous discussion has already dealt with the false assumption that powerseeking and the
> supervaluation of the special are unavoidable, intrinsic aspects of human nature. The anthropologist Richard Leakey
> has pointed out that the human propensity for cooperation was more important even than intelligence in allowing
> primitive humans to prevail over animals who were physically superior in virtually every respect (fleetness of foot,
> keenness of sense, physical strength, etc.). Moreover, Leakey points out that any species which was genetically
> programmed for intraspecific aggression would have been eliminated by natural selection within a few generations.
> Indeed one can hardly imagine a more negatively selective gene than one that inclines anyone who carries it to
> destroy everybody else who carries it.7
> Thus, from the beginning and throughout the whole history of social development, humans have
> demonstrated that they possess the capacity for cooperation and altruism. That we, and our ancestors, have so
> consistently fallen under the spell of powerseeking indicates only that experience alone is not a sufficient moral
> teacher. Even though we have experienced the disastrous results of powerseeking in the twentieth century perhaps
> more than any other century of history, we still doggedly pursue power in our relations with each other, and we do
> so in the name of the pursuit of a happiness that never comes, because it cannot ever come from powerseeking.8
> We cannot change the past. For all eternity it will be true that men have oppressed women throughout our
> history and that whites have subjected blacks to brutal enslavement. No act of atonement on the part of men towards
> women or whites towards blacks can ever alter these facts.
> We also have very little control over the future. We can of course plan, but unforeseen circumstances can
> always frustrate even the most careful plans. Indeed, we have significant control only over the present and, more
> particularly, over our own actions in the present. Nothing is clearer than the fact that if we continue to act in the
> present the way we have acted in the past, then our future will be just like our past.
> Or turn it the other way around. Only by acting in the present differently from the way we acted in the past
> can we have a better future. Our past has been a history of powerseeking, injustice, and the exploration of
> differences. If we want a future that is more just and more unified than the past, then we have only one choice: we
> must replace the pursuit of power by the pursuit of authenticity and we must deliberately reconfigure our society and
> its underlying value system by putting greater emphasis on what is universal and less emphasis on what is particular,
> which does not mean suppressing the particular. Indeed, one of the fundamental characteristics of true universality is
> its respect for and appreciation of diversity. Suppression of the particular leads not to unity but to uniformity, which
> is grossly inauthentic.9
> It is within the scope of each individual will to choose to renounce power in relationships with others. This
> is a choice we can make whether or not others choose to make it. The fact that others continue to seek power over us
> and to compete with us does not constitute a moral imperative for us to act in the same way. By becoming conscious
> of the ways we pursue power and then by deliberately renouncing these powerseeking strategies, we can begin
> immediately the process of effecting significant change in the moral quality of our lives. This does not mean that we
> allow ourselves to be victims of others’ injustice. It means rather that we use our power to seek justice rather than to
> wreak revenge.
> In other words, our future happiness is largely in our own hands at every instant. This indeed is part of
> divine justice, that, in the last analysis, our happiness does not depend so much on the external circumstances of our
> lives but rather on the way we choose to respond to those circumstances.
> 
> The Social Dimension
> We have established that the central challenge of the modern world is to replace the pursuit of power-based,
> asymmetrical relations with the pursuit of authentic relations based on altruistic love. On the personal level, such a
> choice is within the scope of the will of each individual. Indeed, it is for this very purpose that God has endowed us
> with our intrinsic spiritual capacities.
> But what of the collectivity? What are we to do about those who refuse to make the choice of renouncing
> the pursuit of power? Bahá’u’lláh’s answer to this question is his Covenant: he has constructed an ingenious system
> for the administration of human affairs in which it is literally impossible to succeed in pursuing power.
> Some of the salient features of this system are the collective exercise of decision-making authority, the
> electoral process without nomination of candidates, novel social and administrative structures (e.g., profit-sharing in
> economic enterprises) which reduce or eliminate conflicts of interest, and the minimum of outer rewards for service
> on public institutions, which diminishes the tendency for the egotistic individual to seek such offices or to survive in
> them if he does succeed.
> However, the ultimate and complete guarantee against powerseeking is, and can only be, the spiritual
> authority Bahá’u’lláh has conferred upon the Universal House of Justice. This alone is our assurance that no one will
> or can ever succeed in the pursuit of power in the Bahá’í Order. As the influence of this Order spreads in the world,
> so will the pursuit of power be defeated. The Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh, and in particular the spiritual authority of the
> House of Justice, is the rock on which the ship of the pursuit of power will ultimately founder and destroy itself. The
> Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh is that divine barrier which alone will separate forever the age of injustice and
> powerseeking from the age of justice, of love, and of true and enduring unity.
> Notes
> 1. The fundamentally internal nature of our relationship with God is affirmed by Shoghi Effendi in statements such
> as the following: “. . . the core of religious faith is that mystic feeling which unites man with God. This state of
> spiritual communion can be brought about and maintained by means of meditation and prayer. . . The Bahá’í
> Faith, like all other Divine Religions, is thus fundamentally mystic in character” (Directives 86–87).
> 
> 2. Initially, the juxtaposition of Marxist materialism with the longing for transcendence may appear contradictory.
> However, this paradox is relieved when we recall that Marxism was not materialism in practice but, on the
> contrary, a collective sacrifice for a materialistic ideal. This interpretation of the Russian experience is borne
> out by the incredible material sacrifices that the Russians did in fact make in the name of Marxism during the
> Soviet period.
> 
> 3. Choosing to relate authentically does not mean renouncing or abolishing differentiated social roles (this is one of
> the mistakes of radical egalitarianism). It means that we do not use such roles to justify inauthentic behavior.
> Suppose I am a doctor and you are a patient. The fact that you are sick, weak, vulnerable, and frightened gives
> me the opportunity to dominate you, but it does not oblige me to do so. I can instead choose to use my skills
> (self-development) to uplift you as a loving friend. Thus, the temporary asymmetry in our social roles does not
> necessitate a relational asymmetry in which I am perceived as superior to you.
> 
> 4. In passing, a word should be said regarding the several passages from the Bahá’í writings in which believers are
> urged to “vie with one another” in the path of God, thus (by implication) to “compete spiritually” with each
> other. Some may feel that these passages validate the moral authenticity of competition, thus contradicting my
> strong contention that competition is spiritually inauthentic. The answer is that the competition being urged in
> the Bahá’í writings is a competition of service towards others, not a competition of dominance or superiority.
> This is clear when, for example, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says, “Happy the soul that shall forget his own good, and like the
> chosen ones of God, vie with his fellows in service to the good of all (Secret 116). This “vying in service to the
> good of all” is really cooperation and humility, not powerseeking.
> 
> 5. For a more complete and detailed refutation of the materialist view, see Hatcher, Love, Power, and Justice 70–72.
> 
> 6. In numerous places, the Bahá’í writings make it quite clear that every human soul, whether attached to a male or a
> female body, has the capacity to reflect all of the attributes of God. For example, Bahá’u’lláh writes: “Upon the
> inmost reality of each and every created thing He [God] hath shed the light of one of His names, and made it a
> recipient of the glory of one of His attributes. Upon the reality of man, however, He hath focused the radiance
> of all of His names and attributes, and made it a mirror of His own Self. Alone of all created things man hath
> been singled out for so great a favor, so enduring a bounty” (64–65). The “reality of man” referred to in this
> passage is clearly the generic human soul.
> 
> 7. See Leakey and Lewin, People of the Lake.
> 
> 8. In Love, Power, and Justice, we also advance the thesis that the misapplication of modem economic theories to
> human relations has contributed to the supervaluation of the special in human affairs (see 31–34). Because
> material values are diminished when shared, the basis of economics is held to be competition for rarity (the
> special). But spiritual values such as love or knowledge are enhanced, not diminished, when shared. (For
> example. if I share my love with you, then the sum total of love is increased, not decreased, because love calls
> forth love.) The thesis is that we have uncritically transferred the logic of material values to the realm of
> spiritual values, where that logic no longer applies. We therefore conceive of such values as love or knowledge
> as perishable goods for which we must compete, rather than eternal values which we must share. The true logic
> of spiritual values is thus cooperation for the universal rather than competition for the special.
> 
> 9. The question naturally arises as to whether there has been any significant change towards authenticity in the
> modern period, say the last 150 years. There does seem to have been some change in the way we talk about the
> future. During most of history, the presumption was that the future would and should be a continuation of the
> past. Public consciousness about fundamental issues of human rights and injustice seem now to have created an
> ethos in which the majority of people anticipate a future that will be significantly more just than (and thus
> different from) the past. In other words, we have succeeded in changing the way we talk about the future.
> Though this is undoubtedly a positive development in itself, it can also help foster the complacent illusion that
> we can change the future just by changing the way we talk about it, avoiding thereby the inexorable logic that
> demands a radical change in our present behavior.
> 
> Works Cited
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. The Promulgation of Universal Peace: Talks Delivered by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá during His Visit to the
> United States and Canada in 1912. Comp. Howard MacNutt. 2d ed. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust,
> 1982.
> ———. The Secret of Divine Civilization. Trans. Marzieh Gail. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1957.
> ———. Selections from the Writings of ‘‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Trans. Marzieh Gail et al. Comp. Research Dept. of the
> Universal House of Justice. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1997.
> 
> Bahá’u’lláh. Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh. Trans. Shoghi Effendi. 2d ed. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í
> Publishing Trust, 1983.
> 
> Clemens, Samuel Langhorne [Mark Twain]. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. New York: W. W. Norton, 1962.
> 
> Hatcher, William S. Love, Power, and Justice: The Dynamics of Authentic Morality. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í
> Publishing Trust, 1998.
> 
> Leakey, Richard E., and Roger Lewin. People of the Lake: Mankind and Its Beginnings. New York: Doubleday,
> 1978.
> 
> Shoghi Effendi. Directives from the Guardian. New Delhi: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1973.
> ———. The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh: Selected Letters. Rev. ed. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1991.
> 
> Universal House of Justice. Messages from the Universal House of Justice: 1963 1986 The Third Epoch of the
> Formative Age. Comp. Geoffry W. Marks. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1996.
>
> — *Love, Power, and Justice (Used by permission of the curator)*