The 48 Laws Of Power

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1998

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.

Download PDF

Summary

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Preface and Laws 1-16

Laws 17-32

Laws 33-48

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Themes

Power as an Amoral Game

In the opening chapter of his book, Greene cites the 19th-century French novelist Honoré de Balzac, who states that “there is no good and bad, there are only circumstances. The superior man espouses events and circumstances in order to guide them” (30). Greene emphasizes that while the naive and idealistic may try to play a straight game guided by honesty and good principles, there will always be those who take advantage of circumstances to gain more influence for themselves. The rest of us must recognize and adopt these more cunning people’s tactics to protect our position and get what we want. Thus, maintaining that power is amoral, Greene goes against the myth promoted by religion and popular culture, that it is paramount to align with truth and goodness because this always triumphs over evil and lies.

As part of this amoral stance, Greene insists that you do not judge people “by their intentions but by the effect of their actions. You measure their strategy and their power by what you can see and feel” (32). In other words, powerful people are not necessarily dreamers with strong ideologies, but those who can influence others to do their bidding.

Greene illustrates this with the example of the German politician Otto von Bismarck, who internally had a vision of going to war against Austria and achieving the unification that would make Germany powerful. However, he knew that going to war too early with an underprepared German army might result in loss, both to Austria and of his position. As a result, he campaigned for peace, currying favor with the peace-loving king and his conservative ministers. Von Bismarck’s deceptive abilities earned him the superior role of prime minister. Once von Bismarck was secure in this position, he attained the power to strengthen the army and enter and win the war, which led to the German unification he had wanted all along.

Greene argues that while von Bismarck had a clear vision of what he wanted, he actually attained the ability to execute it not by stating the truth, but by “sending misleading signals” and concealing his true intentions (66). Thus, his rise to power was more strategic than ideological, as he paid attention to the circumstances at hand rather than being confounded by notions of right or wrong.

Citing the example of the German Communist playwright Bertolt Brecht, Greene shows that a variant of von Bismarck’s strategy can also be played by those who want to protect their power from those who would take it away. When Brecht was summoned to appear before the Un-American Activities Committee, he embodied Greene’s 22nd law of using the surrender tactic, as he presented a congenial front before the committee, answering their questions in a manner that made it impossible for them to prove that he was a Communist. As a result, Brecht evaded prison and was able to leave the United States. Despite his strong Communist ideology, Brecht knew that in this circumstance, he would be better off taking an amoral stance and toeing the other party’s line to retain his freedom of movement. He took the long view that doing whatever it took to stay out of prison would better serve his cause.

While Greene shows how people have played to circumstances to shape the world we have today, the American cultural zeitgeist has shifted since he wrote the book in the late 1990s. The following decades offered up prime examples of people staging ventures that maximize their own power, while they ruthlessly divest it from others. For example, the global financial crash of the late 2000s was in part caused by the greed of bankers, who sought to profit at the expense of everyone else, while in 2017, the Me-Too campaign revealed how the most powerful men in the entertainment industry had been using the strength of their position to commit and conceal atrocities against women. As a result, society is quick to judge those who appear to be reaching for power.

Obvious power moves that are amoral in nature are even less socially acceptable than when Greene was writing his book, even as they continue to be performed. Moreover, newer trends in the self-help movement, such as that pioneered by Brené Brown, emphasize genuine authenticity and the need for actions to have morally sound, mutually beneficial outcomes. While honesty and being guided by ethics in every action are anathema for Greene, Brown maintains that these traits are essential for gaining the trust that will allow you to influence another person. Whereas Greene focuses on outcomes, Brown insists that the method is just as important. Such a discrepancy can be explained by Brown’s interest in creating a better world as opposed to Greene’s desire to thrive by the dynamics of the present one.

The Contradictory Road to Power

One criticism levelled at Greene’s book is that the “rules often contradict each other. We are told, for instance, to ‘be conspicuous at all costs,’ then told to ‘behave like others’” (Kirkus). Such mixed messages could be confusing for readers who want a simple takeaway that will empower them. As Greene tells them to both stand out and blend in, they are the ones left to judge which response is most appropriate.

The contradictory nature of the laws results from Greene’s understanding of power an amoral response precisely tailored to the circumstances. As circumstances and the hierarchy of the players can vary widely, so does the appropriate power move. Greene argues against a single strategy working out for every battle, as he shows how the powerful have become masters of psychology, gaining the measure of their opponent and tailoring their approach. Here, as when he advocates that his readers master the art of timing and “become a detective of the right moment; sniff out the spirit of the times, the trends that will carry you to power” (519), Greene indicates that there is no quick route to gaining influence. As your power depends on other people, you cannot skip the step of getting to know them, both as individuals and as a collective in society.

Thus, the powerful are not only actors, but keen observers and interpreters of the world. In fact, in his penultimate law “Do Not Go Past The Mark You Aimed For; In Victory, Learn When To Stop,” Greene illustrates how people have lost power in their belief that a single, once-successful strategy will lead them to victory in other battles. By believing that a tried and tested approach will make them untouchable, people have missed the nuances of the current moment and set the path for their own defeat. Greene highlights this emphasis on the moment in his final law, which advises the reader to accept change and to change along with it. He even goes as far as stating that the wisdom of former masters is useless as he quotes the French 19th-century general Napoleon: “the laws that govern circumstances are abolished by new circumstances” (771). It is up to the reader to “gauge each new situation” and adapt their strategy.

Greene’s idea of how seriously the reader should take the laws of power is also contradictory. While he offers that the wisdom of masters should be secondary to the requirements of the particular circumstance, he also advises that those who have lost power are the ones who have let a single success go to their heads and forgotten the laws of power in the mistaken belief that they are invincible. Thus, a flexible approach, both to circumstances and the laws themselves, seems like the best strategy for success. The laws should be used flexibly as an inspiration rather than as a bible.

The Relationship Between Hardship and Power

Throughout the laws, Greene traces a relationship between hardship and power. While on the surface, a path free of obstacles might seem ideal, Greene maintains that “plenitude and prosperity tend to make us lazy and inactive: When our power is secure we have no need to act” (639). Those with secure power are either born into wealth and privilege, or they are champions who remain unchallenged in their particular field. Either way, complacency is likely to result from such circumstances, and those in them will rarely aspire to conquer new territories or spur themselves on to further excellence.

Greene shows how the perception of scarcity and the spirit of competition have been behind some of the landmarks of human progress, both in science and in art. Thus, it is not just an individual’s genius and their devotion to their craft which makes them triumph, but their desire to outdo others with similar goals and make a name for themselves. For example, the design of Louis XIV’s palace of Versailles, a place of unparalleled splendor, arose from the king’s desire to teach his precocious finance minister Fouquet a lesson following the public unveiling of Fouquet’s own luxurious chateau. Greene thus advocates that the ambitious cultivate opponents and never lose sight of them if they are to attain new heights.

Greene anticipates special challenges faced by the successors of great leaders. Instead of building on their predecessors’ wealth and influence, sons of powerful monarchs have typically squandered their privilege because they do not face the void that makes them hungry for more power. Greene sets up a contrast between two sons of great men, Louis XV and Alexander the Great. Louis XV, the successor the renowned Sun King Louis XIV, who had grown up with every privilege, saw no need to increase his power and so made pleasure his focus and succumbed to decadence.

In contrast, Alexander made it his mission to challenge his father, the renowned King Philip of Macedonia, in every way. He adopted a different character to his father and conquered new territories. Making his father’s reputation his number one enemy, Alexander kept himself hungry for battle and accomplishment. Greene argues that Alexander was that rare type of privileged son who created his own power vacuum, starting “from ground zero psychologically, by throwing off the weight of the past and charting a new direction” (634).

While Greene presents the convincing argument that a measure of hardship and opposition is instrumental to success, he fails to account for the systemic privilege that allows a small minority to access a significant measure of power. After all, Louis XV may not have been the same style of warmongering autocrat as his father, but he still had great influence on the style of a court and the fate of a nation. Conversely, some hardships like extreme poverty and discrimination make daily life a struggle for survival and so undercut a person’s potential to access power. In such circumstances, hardship often leads to powerlessness across generations.