The Critique of the 48 laws of power by Robert Greene

Hello everyone, I set out to write a review for a book that gained a massive amount of attention some years back. If you have been following this series, you know I break down the chapters and rank the book into four distinct categories. I often review books I've read in the past and this book was no exception. However, while reading this book initially, I quickly discovered that the intent of this book was something I could not get behind. This is primarily founded by the fact that I disagree with almost every aspect of this book. I thought that since it had been years, maybe something would have changed and though I doubted I’d completely change my disposition on it, I felt a review could be salvaged. At the start of my second read, it settled that this was not the case and that I would not be able to read through this a second time as I kept stopping to rant against the book. Due to this, I felt it was unfair to review it due to my skeptical thoughts. However, moving from this, I felt I could not move forward without explaining why I disliked this book.

 I have broken my critique into 6 parts, 1-5 laying out critiques against the purpose of the book, and the last my critiques just from a writing perspective. I want to end this introduction by saying my goal is not to demean or ridicule Greene’s work, however, I think the ideas are being presented to a population of people who are susceptible to the ideas in the book, ideas that I find deeply problematic in some regards. I would be amiss in myself not to attempt to counterbalance this using my platform. 

Book as an argument 

 The main mode of delivery for this book has to be considered an argument or set of arguments. To assert that power follows some nature or that these laws presented allude to the nature of power asserts a claim, thus requiring proof that the evidence presented leads to the conclusion being claimed. There is no other writing style that can accomplish this goal to the maximum strength an argumentative-styled book could portray. Before going into the question of what argument this book could be making, I want to demonstrate exactly how this fails structurally from the beginning. 

Critique of definitions 

One way an argument can be used is to assert a definition. This is an idea that we can utilize common characteristics or common practices to synthesize a useful conception of what said word is useful. Additionally, they are needed to strengthen how your evidence leads to your conclusions. Here we get to the first major issue with this book, that being we never get a definition of “power”. The only thing we can point to for this is the examples given in each chapter, and the explanations given in the “key to power” sections. However, we run into issues by attempting to assert examples as the definition. The issue with this is that examples alone cannot derive a definition in that they only point to components of what the idea could be, not the holistic picture.  For example, if I were to try and define a bee using examples, I may say that a bee flies like a fruit fly, looks like any other bug, and has the color of a banana. Are these all true of a bee, yes, but am I painting a clear picture of what a bee is? I've left out its fuzzy coat, its stinger, and even its black stripes. This is why extracting definitions from examples can prove problematic, even though it can be done in reverse. If I start by giving a definition, I can use examples to solidify the terms I've set for said word. By not doing this with power, Greene runs into not giving us a solid image of what power is. What this in turn does is weaken his overall argument, leaving it prey to very simple rebuttals( like presenting examples that go against all his examples). We weaken the whole book since you cannot have the book without power, but as of now, we have a very weak definition of power, so thus, the links between ideas seem unclear. 

Critique of Hidden Assumptions 

I’ll address this in detail later, but a big argumentative flaw I see is that there are many hidden assumptions. There are many parts where the nature of things is assumed as opposed to being justified. We don't need to go through every single argument we make and justify every single word but to not have big concepts be left as just truths is not a good usage of argumentation. For example, the biggest assumption I see is asserting the ideas of human nature operating in one way, that being selfish and power hungry. Nowhere is it even really examined why this assumption is warranted. We are supposed to take this with no contesting as if it is an undebated truth when it most certainly is ( more on this later). This produces a problem of opening yourself up to critiques, and somewhat acting in bad faith. For the first part, by not explaining why your idea is justified, people ( like me now) can ask why and divert the argument away from your true point. Bad faith occurs in that if you want to point out the most accurate image of what you are arguing for, and want others to know it, not doing your due diligence at the expense of the reader is inconsiderate or manipulative. 

Book as a study of power 

I've covered two reasons I think this book fails from an argumentative side, but assuming we can get past that, the question of what this book would be arguing for remains. Since the use of the word “power” has not been fully defined, what this book aims at can be lost in translation. However, three points of focus have been directly or indirectly stated as the mission of the book. The first is that this book serves as a study of the nature of power. The idea is that within this book, one can find how power operates in our modern society, as well as its evolution with time. Here are my critiques of this point of focus, assuming it is something Greene wanted the book to be. 

Critique of Definition 

This one is quite an easy extension from my previous section, in that by not defining power, how can you be reporting to give a historical account of it? What is the reader to compare or see change if the definitions are not given? We cannot synthesize a legitimate study of something without explaining what the subject is meant to be. Look at any textbook and you’ll have the first chapter be about “ biology is the study of life….”  giving a detailed explanation of what will be the aspects of the word you will be exploring. 

Critique of timeframe 

I find it weird that most, if not all, of the examples are relegated to older times. Like the courtiers and kings and noblemen. Why would we need to talk about them for a modern conception of power? I mean, it's not a problem to bring them up, especially if we are evaluating the progression of power, but not mentioning any real modern-day wielder of power seems to be missing a big aspect of the study of power.   

Critique from philosophy (generally)   

I won't go too much into this, as we know me and philosophy, but there is something here to address. Power has historically been under the purview of philosophy in the discourse. This means that any idea dealing with power must contend with philosophical arguments. However, there is no real reference to core philosophical concepts. All we get are quotes from Machiavelli and Nietzsche but nothing else. This fails the study of the topic in two ways. It assumes a lot about the nature of power without contending with the literature. For example, it assumes a certain selfish nature implicit in man. That man will always go against each other for their own sake. This is a very Hobbsian notion of society, but he was not the only theorist to report how we may have been or are in society. You had two other prominent social contract theorists who would say otherwise. I don't see why we can take it at face value to assert that humans are naturally inclined to power or selfishness. Additionally, even if you do not want to discuss these ideas, you are missing the loads of people who have talked about power in a way that's different from yours. You cannot have a depiction of what power can manifest as without talking about Foucault's ideas on power, or Marx’s critique of capital's influence on power. Philosophically, this point is not well defended or grounded, thus becoming a hollow study of the topic.  

The book as a tool for social navigation

Moving from considering this a book about studying power, let's aim at this book serving to guide people in the world of power. What I mean is that in the preface, Greene says this book can be a tool to navigate the world of power so you can capitalize on the opportunities present. There are three objections I have to his assertion, all of which seem to undermine how this book could reliably help me through social situations.  

Critique of Timeframe 

As mentioned earlier, most of the examples given are set in older times, power looked very different than today. Like I think the most recent example I saw was from 1972 when the book came out in 1998 so why nothing from the last 20 years? Also, one example was a chess game, other than that we only get things from the 1940s but most come from early history. How is anyone supposed to navigate the world of power if most of these examples talk about power without modern medicine? The ability to control life rather than prevent death was a major shifting point in power dynamics so to say you can navigate power and not talk about this( mind you this shows up in Foucult’s work so it cannot be ascribed to a limit in time). Additionally, though this is no fault of the book since it came out before the internet, this book is not as helpful now that social media produces its ability to assume power.  

Human nature 

This ties into my philosophical critique from the last section, in that there are many assumptions made about human nature that are at minimum incorrectly leading you astray, and at worse, producing problematic thoughts about your peers. A few assumptions I saw were, the nature of humans, that everyone wants power consciously or subconsciously,  and that women love seduction, but only a certain brand of seduction. We already addressed the nature of humans' assumptions earlier, so let's turn our gaze towards the other two. In the case of everyone wanting power, this is not the case in modern times. Most people work a corporate 9-5 in an office pushing papers, then go to drink with friends ending the night with their partners and probably a dog. The DINK (Double income no kids) lifestyle has become so popular that many people enjoy simply vibing through life with money to get by and care to give. Do you feel like the person who is putting their dog in a tutu is secretly planning on your downfall? NO!!! Moving on to women, there is a story that displays a problematic( and I’d argue sexist) depiction of seduction. The example given is this man is going after a woman by using the advice of another woman, claiming that if he remains aloof, mysterious, and plays games, he will win the attraction of the girl. However, the man botched his chance by telling her he loved her in the middle of the plan. She then never talks to him due to feeling lied to. This is used as evidence of how seduction works and how hiding what you want and being mysterious is the real way to anyone's heart, but more importantly women’s. It takes this case as evidence that if you are honest, people lose interest. There is just one thing this case didn't account for. WOMEN CAN ENJOY YOUR COMPANY NONROMANTICALLY!!!! He is claiming that this woman stopped liking him because the mystery was gone, but has he entertained for one second the idea that maybe the woman took the distant charisma as nonromantic friendship and enjoyed the banter, and then finding out this has all been a ruse to get with her hurt her? Like surprise lying to someone for a while so you can sleep with them is hurtful to the party being lied to. To then say this is what is good and the wrong that occurred was that he got caught is crazy. These instances showcase that the assumptions made about the character, do not map onto our modern world as cleanly as they should to be a tool of social navigation. 

The book is a tool for making you feel better  

The last way this book can be salvaged is that this book will make you feel better in life. If one follows these tips, you too will be less helpless. You may be shocked to hear this but I think Greene is correct here (if this is the aim of the book). If you read this book and begin to try and implement these concepts in your everyday life, you will feel better. However, the reasons you feel better are as important as the how. These principles by themselves, produce a narcissist. We all have a conception of what a narcissist means but what I assert it to mean is someone who is so enamored by public affection that they will curtail their whole life and personality to obtain more public attention. This produces a lot of good for the narcissist, it makes them feel more self-assured, and on top of the world, and gives them the ability to take back control in life in a way they probably couldn’t before reading. This may help others as well, in that you become the ultimate chameleon that caters to the likes of others, the ultimate people pleaser everyone enjoys being around because you make them feel great. Here, we can see that what Greene is doing isn't asserting tips on what will give you power, it is giving you tools to make you feel socially validated. I argue this is why this book became so popular when it did. The world was (I’d argue still is) suffering from a crisis of social esteem. We do not know how to develop meaningful representation in society, especially men. This book portrays the very human need to belong as a mission to oblige the masculine want for power. Here is why that is a problem. 

  To claim that belonging is the same as power forces you to become the narcissist I mentioned above, and though we label the good of it, there are many bads. First, you are constantly having to refrain from being who you are. If you were looking for power then it wouldn't matter, but if you are looking for real connection, you cannot have genuine and deeply validating relationships if you aren’t your authentic self. How do you expect someone to love you as you are if you are constantly trying to be the person others love because you make them feel good? Moving from here, getting people to like you using this book is oftentimes manipulative. They oftentimes don't get to like you for you, because you've convinced them to like you through deception, obfuscation, and pandering. This may make you feel good for a bit, but will not last in the long run. Yes, it's great to be admired by people, but it's better to have people stick around, and manipulating them is not the way to do that.  Additionally, the people you attract by doing this are people who are using you. They only like you for what you do for them not who you are. Lastly, to follow this ideal, the assumption about what your wants are and how people act will produce a significant amount of paranoia. If you think your want for love is seeking power, then everyone else wanting to seek connection with you will feel disingenuous. Keeping up with all the lies you said to sound better will become draining, and fighting with your fellow “ power competitors” will force you to live a life in integrated solitude. 

Overall, if you want to feel better in the short term, not caring what it does to the people around you then yeah, This book will work. However, you will not be gaining more power, and you won't be keeping people that matter around. I think that this is really what people want when they pick up this book, not power.   

Conclusion 

I said at the beginning that this is not a book I recommend. I feel I have demonstrated every way that I can as to why this is not a good book. However, I want to drive home the point that this will not be the best way to feel better. I don't believe anyone got this book trying to be a master of others. I think the people most likely to read this just want to feel good about their lives. And if that is you, I recognize your struggle and I’ve been there too. It's hard navigating this world especially when it feels like nothing you can do to fix it. I promise you it will get better, not by reading books like these, but by trusting yourself, giving yourself grace for the things you've ruined, and pushing yourself to be who you truly are. I will be reading other books that will help with this journey. But till then, stay strong cause you are loved no matter what it feels like. You don't need power over others to live well, you just need strength to push towards a life that's good to you.