Let no one think that this is a description merely of political parties, cliques, office-holders, and bosses, nor that the economic sphere is the only one that needs to be considered along with the political. No; the psychology of the matter applies to the whole experience of wielding power. Many years ago a woman became, as she thought, disillusioned concerning a leader who was widely known for his utterly unselfish devotion to the common weal. “For,” said she, “I have learned that in his family he is dictatorial to the point of tyranny, whereas outside his family he teaches and practises the exact opposite.” It was my privilege to point out that there is here no psychological inconsistency. “He was born into a social system that took for granted that a husband and father would be the ‘head of the family,’ and as such would make decisions for the whole family, and employ the family means to carry his decisions through. From this root his domestic habits grew as grows the grass. On the other hand, outside the family he encountered a contrary set of assumptions, and he developed a contrasting set of habits. These habits truly reveal his capacity for sensitive response to persons; if he were to start his family experience _de novo_ under the assumptions of the new day, with no consciousness of the old-fashioned power as ‘head of the family,’ he would form domestic habits that would satisfy you.” Knowledge of the psychology of power is needed in our religious organizations. For here additional emotional sanctions gather around the conduct of clerical leaders, and around institutional acts, past and present. The religiousness of both leader and led reinforces the tendencies that have been described, and then partly overlooks, partly hushes up, partly defends, and partly sanctifies the results.